Justice delayed is justice denied

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a legal maxim. It means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all.
This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights which are meant to expedite the legal system, because of the unfairness for the injured party who sustained the injury having little hope for timely and effective remedy and resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts, tribunals, judges, arbitrators, administrative law judges, commissions or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the case is too complex, the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favour. Individual cases may be affected by judicial hesitancy to make a decision. Statutes and court rules have tried to control the tendency; and judges may be subject to oversight and even discipline for persistent failures to decide matters timely, or accurately report their backlog. When a court takes a matter "under advisement" awaiting the issue of a judicial opinion, order or judgement and forestalls final adjudication of a lawsuit or resolution of a motion the issue of timeliness of the decision comes into play.

Origin

There are conflicting accounts of who first noted the phrase. According to Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, it is attributable to William Ewart Gladstone; however, while Gladstone did mention the phrase during a House of Commons debate on 16 March 1868, earlier occurrences of the phrase exist. In the Babylonian Talmud, Rav Pappa notes the existence of the saying, "When justice sleeps, justice is canceled."
Mentions of justice delayed and denied are found in Pirkei Avot: "Our Rabbis taught:...The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied...". Nachmanides understands the advice given by Jethro in Exodus 18:22, to judge the people at all times, as suggesting that Israel needed more judges because potential litigants would otherwise suffer injustice due to their inability to find a judge to hear their case.
Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 of which reads, "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."
In 1617, upon being elevated to Lord Chancellor of England, Francis Bacon said that "Swift justice is the sweetest." Another 17th-century version of the phrase is attributed to William Penn in the form "to delay Justice is Injustice".
Martin Luther King Jr., used the phrase in the form "justice too long delayed is justice denied" in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", smuggled out of prison in 1963, ascribing it to "one of our distinguished jurists".
The broader public policy implications are a source of concern. As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

"A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets."

Lack of a speedy and effective resolution can cause unwarranted delay. It has been observed that it creates a sense of frustration and unfairness, and a feeling of a lack of efficacy, which adversely affects employee morale and labor relations in the federal sector.
"Delays in the law are hateful" In diem vivere in lege sunt detestabilis is a Latin legal maxim. On the other hand, "No delay is long concerning the death of a man," is another Latin lawyer's aphorism. And, "It is not to be imagined, that the King will be guilty of vexatious delays."
For participants in the justice system, the question of whether justice was denied is whether delay is avoidable or disproportionate, or unavoidable and necessary. Proportionality is integral to such interpretations. Time taken to resolve the dispute is critical. Alternative dispute resolution, case management systems, and trial and motion practice are all integral to such determinations.

Ethical principles

Prompt decision-making is part of "Judging 101", and is covered in every judicial handbook. "Judges should endeavour to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved judgments, with reasonable promptness." To a similar effect in Canada: "A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly...."
Applicable to federal judges and effective March 12, 2019, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges elucidates "the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities." Beyond general exhortations, it has little to say about delay in dispositions:

"Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
"The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:
" Adjudicative Responsibilities.
" A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
" A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings....
" A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court."

As a commentator for the American Judicature Society noted:

"Unjustifiable delay in court proceedings, particularly in deciding cases, can have a significant impact on the parties and reflects adversely on the judicial system. Under Canon 3Bof the 1990 model code, a judge is required to "dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly." Commentary to the 1990 model code reminds judges that "in disposing of matters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard," while a comment to the 2007 model code cautions that "the duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed... to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate."

To ensure prompt and efficient disposition of cases, commentary to the code advises judges to:
seek the necessary docket time, court staff, expertise, and resources,
monitor and supervise cases,
devote adequate time to judicial duties,
be punctual in attending court,
expeditiously decide matters under submission, and
take reasonable measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate to that end."

Speedy justice in the findings and within the confines of the case, facts and the law is a stated goal of many legal systems. Conversely, "epriving quick and certain justice to the litigants... reinforces the negative images of the judicial system...."
A long list of potential excuses for extended decisional slow motion are disallowed. And in weighing the wrongfulness of the delay, there are a multiplicity of factors that may come into play.

Legislative prescriptions

Passed in 1990, the United States Code, Title 28, §476 has a "novel process of making public the names of judges" who let cases go too long without decisions or judgment. Reports must be filed if motions and trials are in submission and have been pending more than six months without decision; and cases that have not been ended within three years of filing. See Civil Justice Reform Act, which tries to deal with lifetime tenured judges, judicial efficiency, judicial independence, separation of powers and legislative oversight.
The Province of Quebec, Canada, has a flat statutory statement mandating six months as a requirement for ordinary civil actions. It states: 465. "A judgment on the merits must be rendered within six months after the case is taken under advisement, or within four months after the case is taken under advisement in a small claims matter."
In Canada, the six months has been treated as a mere aspirational guideline or suggestion. According to the Canadian Judicial Council, even when it took it seriously, the consequence was "a slap on the wrist." In one misconduct claim, a Quebec judge had gone over the 6-month limit in five cases. When the Council proceed up the judge's chain of command, it was handled administratively. The chief judge complained, and ipso facto the judgments appeared. A simple warning was issued, and the judge retired.
In Louisiana there exist overlapping statutes and court rules, which require that cases be decided within 30 days of submission. They require the filing of a report, if that standard is exceeded. Untimely decisions and misstatements or failure to document cases may subject a judge to judicial discipline.

Court rule fixes

In some states, court rules have been adopted requiring that delays in making decisions or completing cases must be reported. For example, in Michigan the so-called "910 Report" must be filed after a matter is under advisement for more than 90 days. It requires the judge to file a certified statement with the court administrator specifying the case, the matters taken under advisement, the reasons for the delay, and the estimated time of arrival for the cure to the problem.
In Indiana, "Trial Rule 53.1 and Ind. Trial Rule 53.2 are officially titled "Failure to rule on motion" and "Time for holding issue under advisement; delay of entering a judgment but are commonly known as the 'lazy judge' rules." Under those rules, the trial court has 90 days in which to render its decision; and that time can only be extended by order of the Indiana Supreme Court.