(Jamaica) Where a defendant claimed that his constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been infringed, it was correct for the appellate courts to take account of the fact that it remained clear that the defendant was guilty of a very serious offence. In this case it was appropriate to substitute a conviction of. non-capital murder for capital murder because of errors in the summing up and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The duty rests on the court system to ensure that on a retrial counsel for the defence is provided with the transcript of the first trial, or relevant part of it.
Lord Hutton distinguished Darmalingum, saying that the more appropriate approach was to take account of all factors which had been discussed before their Lordships and notwithstanding the lengthy and very regrettable delay in that case, he came to the conclusion that a conviction should not be quashed by reason of delay.
Times 01-Dec-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 2396, Appeal No 54 of 1999, [2000] UKPC 41
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Mills v HM Advocate and Another PC 22-Jul-2002
(The High Court of Justiciary) The defendant appealed on the basis that the delay in the sentencing process had resulted in an infringement of his human rights.
Held: The appeal itself had been without merit. The delay had been to such an . .
Cited – Boodram v The State PC 10-Apr-2001
(Trinidad and Tobago) On a retrial, the defendant’s counsel only became aware that there had been an earlier trial late in the proceedings, and, when he became aware of it, he did not try to obtain the transcript of the first trial in order to . .
Cited – J, Regina v CACD 2-Jul-2001
Orse Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2001
The AG sought to appeal from the decision that an indictment against the seven defendants should be stayed on the ground that there had been a breach of Article 6(1). They were accused of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.159431
