Page 570 - Magistrates Conference 2019
P. 570
or (b) it was unfair to try the defendant at all, it will not be appropriate to quash any
8
conviction…
It is essential that the defendant be afforded a trial within a reasonable time: Patrick Bailey v
The Attorney General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and the Director of Public
Prosecution Suit No. 79 of 1999
In a fledgling democracy such as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines it was held that judges
must “forever be vigilant lest failure to detect the subtlety that sometimes slowly undermines
the process of justice.”
The High Court stated that the passage of time or a delay in obtaining evidence after an
offence has been committed may not be considered unfair to the defendants (unless the delay
in inordinate). Chance et al v. The Superintendent of Prisons et al VC 2009 HC 38
What amounts to prejudice to a defendant?
In Jamaica, Steven Grant v R [2010] JMCA Crim 77, citing and approving the earlier
decision of Barker v Wingo [1972] 407 US 514 relied upon, noted that prejudice was to be
assessed by considering the interests of the defendant that a speedy trial was meant to protect.
The interests identified were;
(a) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration;
(b) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and
(c) to limit the possibility that the defence will be impaired. Of the three, the court felt the
most important was the third because the inability of a defendant to adequately prepare his
case necessarily skews the fairness of the system.
Examples of prejudice which could result therefore were that witnesses may die or disappear
during the delay or may be unable to accurately recall the events of a distant past.
Misuse/Misrepresentation by Prosecution
8
The category of cases in which it may be unfair to try a defendant of course includes cases of bad faith, unlawfulness and
executive manipulation of the kind classically illustrated by R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1
AC 42… see also Boolell v The State [2006] UKPC 46
