Page 562 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 562
any prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delay, the consequences faced in the event of
an adverse determination in proceedings.
With regards to the absence of the express clause i.e that the right is not enshrined in the
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, issues arising due to a delay in proceedings not related
to a death sentence are relegated from a constitutional motion to common law treatment on
reasonableness: Maraj- Narinesingh v A. G (2010) 77 WIR 470; DPP v Tokai (1996) 48 WIR
376 (UKPC) [T&T]; Sookermany v DPP (1996) 48 WIR 346 CA- T&T
For death penalty cases: Boodram v The State (2001) 59 WIR 493 (UKPC) [T&T]
For Civil cases: Boodhoo v A.G(2004) 64 WIR 370 (UKPC) [T&T]
Delay
Delay might be excused in certain circumstances where there are cogent and convincing
explanations for it. Lovell v The Queen BB 2016 CCJ 6
Where the defendant alleges delay, he has the burden of proof to show that he has been so
prejudiced in the presentation of his case. Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 1990 1992)
95Cr App R 296
The court also emphasised that where the jurisdiction to stay proceedings is being exercised,
the court must consider the following:
The complexity of the case,
The conduct of the defendant, and
The manner in which the case has been dealt with by the prosecution and the courts. Tan v
Cameron (1993) 2 All ER 493.
The Privy Council in Tan, fully endorsed the judgement given in A-G’s Reference No 1 and
highlighted that even where it is established that the prosecution is at fault, causing prejudice
to the defendant, a court is still required to consider whether the situation that was created by
the delay was such as to make it unfair for the defendant to be held accountable.
Where there is an unwarranted amount of amendments to be made to an information, a
complaint or charge, a magistrate must determine whether there would be any abuse to the
accused if he grants an amendment and proceed with the matter.