I do not know why Rein Lang thinks my "anticipated result" would have been a conviction. It is a peculiar construct and defensive posture based on utterly misguided conclusions.

By the anticipated result I meant a situation where we would not end up with an insanely expensive and ambivalent understanding of the court's decision after nine years of proceedings, being forced to conclude simply that "it is what it is."

I do find that it is not the result that society expected and instead caused confusion and dissatisfaction as well as the rather justified question of why things turned out this way and took so long.

Lang rightly raises the problem of people who have been pulled about by the justice system. The most legendary such case was recently concluded after eight years.

Perhaps there is something the legislator can do? Perhaps it's not necessary for proceedings to start anew when a lay judge needs to be replaced. Perhaps the former and current prosecutor general have enough experience and wisdom to listen when it is suggested that aspects of legislation should be analyzed. Or lawyers and judges for that matter.

As chairman of the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee, I consider it logical that we draw conclusions and introduce amendments were needed in the service of finding fair outcomes inside sensible time limits. I cannot agree with suggestions that this in some way amounts to dismantling the rule of law. On the contrary, it constitutes manufacturing faith in the rule of law.

The Port of Tallinn ruling was not a failure of the prosecution, the court or the legislator. It was a legal failure in general, no matter whether one's point of view is that of the defendants, taxpayer or prosecutor. It is entirely sensible to take a look at shortcomings.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!