Page 566 - Magistrates Conference 2019

accused may still be tried and convicted for the offence for which he is charge, it may be
against public conscience that such award be afforded to the accused.

In Hawkesworth, Gaskin and Scantlebury v Superintendent of Prisons BB 2012 HC 22, a

matter that dealt with an extradition proceeding ongoing for over 8 years in which the
defendant’s most recent application was for habeas corpus seeking bail, the High Court stated

that although there has been delay in resolving that case, some of the delay was occasioned
by the fugitive exercising his rights “ including an application in the High Court for judicial

review which was appealed to this Court and to the CCJ which dismissed the appeal on
procedural grounds.” Accordingly, the grant of bail was refused by the High Court on the

basis that the delay was not as a result of “special circumstances” which required the court to

exercise its discretion in granting the same. Hawkesworth approved of the Australian case of
United Mexican States v. Cabal which stated that where the defendant exercises his right to

appeal against the order of committal, this is not so special that it constitutes special

circumstances.

In Alexander v The Queen [2001] HCA 60 209 C.L.R. 165 paragragh 65 the appellant filed

an appeal in September 2007 and it was set down for hearing on March 2009 but adjourned
sine die. It was not finally heard until November 2011, and determined in 2014. It was held

that the court possess a constitutional and statutory obligation to hear and determine a matter
within a reasonable time, and in this case, where the court took over 6 years to do so the

5
delay was excessive and systemic thereby amounting to a miscarriage of justice. While the
magistrate is not concerned with the appeals process; obtaining from this case is that the

delay with respect to the length of time and the court’s obligation to try a matter within a

reasonable time should be taken into account by a magistrate

In Singh v Harrychan GY 2016 CCJ 4 the Caribbean Court of Justice considered that 9 years

had elapsed since the incident (September 2007) leading to the charge, conviction (November
2010) and the appeal by the appellant. The offence committed by the respondent was of the

simple offence of demanding with menace and this elapse in time was seen as inexcusable.

The facts were that the respondent on being convicted for 3 years by the Magistrate’s Court

5 The Guide to Judicial Conduct, approved by the Judicial Council of Barbados on June 6, 2006 and published at
Chapter VI headed “Competence and Diligence” states at paragraph 6.1 and 6.5 states: "The judicial duties of
the judge take precedence over all other activities. A judge shall perform all judicial duties efficiently. These
duties extend to the delivery of reserved decisions fairly and with reasonable promptness. Save in exceptional
cases and for good reasons, a judge shall endeavour to deliver a reserved judgment within 8 months. Where
a judge reasonably believes that he is likely to reserve judgment for more than 8 months, the judge shall
inform the Chief Justice of the circumstances contributing to delay."