Page 567 - Magistrates Conference 2019

filed his notice of appeal (4 days from conviction) and he was placed on bail pending the
appeal. However, it took 3 years for the magistrate to submit the memorandum of reasons to

the clerk. After this it took some 17 months after the submission of the memorandum for the
clerk to issue the notice of readiness of proceedings to the now appellant’s attorney.

The CCJ therefore remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for hearing and ordered that in

light of the time passed that the respondent be afforded the opportunity to have his appeal
fully heard in the Court of Appeal on its merits despite the technical errors. It further

identified issues of merit that warranted appellate jurisdiction to include:

1. The actual conviction itself;

2. Specifically the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate and whether it was excessive;

and 3. The impact of the delay on the respondent’s constitutional right to a fair hearing within
a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal was directed that in hearing the appeal that it should consider the
extensive delay in the processing of this case and the resulting impact on the conviction and

sentence that was previously imposed by the magistrate.

Again, while the issue of appeals are not determined by a magistrate, the fact that magistrates
have a duty to submit the memorandum of his reasons for his decision within a specified time

so as to facilitate the better administration of justice and the prevention of inordinate delay
should be noted.

In Crown v Ogle 1968 WIR439, consideration of delay in a criminal trial was considered.
Between the committal of the accused by the magistrate and the trial there was a delay of 3

years in between. The prosecution was faced with the further difficulty of having to utilise

the depositions as evidence due to the absence of witnesses which was created as a result of
the delay in bringing on the trial. It was held by the court that the delay was excessive.

Furthermore, the depositions would be required to be read as an alternative to oral evidence,

(which the judge did not allow) and the prosecution did not offer any other evidence.
Consequently, the court ordered that the accused be acquitted.

In Sandiford v The Director of Public Prosecutions 1979 28 WIR p 152 the court emphasized
the importance of trial within a reasonable time. The case dealt with a delay of 14 months

between arrest and commencement of preliminary inquiry.