Page 564 - Magistrates Conference 2019

The purpose of laying an information or preferring a complaint within six month limitation is
to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in the disposal of the matters within the

magistrates’ courts. R v Newcastle upon Tyne Justices, ex p. John Bryce (Contractors) Ltd

[1976] 2 All ER 611

Nevertheless he must be mindful of the six month limitation period and whether the

amendment was being sought to be made on the last possible day so as to frustrate the
proceedings. Where he is hesitant to grant an amendment, he can investigate and adjudicate

upon the charges to find out whether the amendment is necessary or is vexatious and
frivolous.

Where the matter was not filed within a reasonable time, the court must note whether the
lapse within the reasonable time requirement has been violated deliberately. Dyer v Watson

2002 UKPC DI 2004 AC 379; Gregory Lett v The Commissioner of Police & the Attorney

General GDAHCV201/0234

The court in Gregory Lett in deciding whether to order a permanent stay of four (4) cases on
the grounds of delay and abuse of process within the magistrates’ court, applied the principles

emanating from Dyer v Watson.

The court mentioned that the charges which were related to possession and trafficking was

not intricate or complex, and the claimant’s conduct in the matter in no way assisted in the
delayed proceedings.

How is unreasonable delay determined?

According to Gibson v The Attorney General of Barbados (2010) 76 WIR 137, the

determination of unreasonable delay had to be made on a case by case basis. Unreasonable
delay could not be reached by applying a mathematical formula. However, the mere lapse of

time would give rise to the presumption that there had been undue delay, which is rebutted by

the state.