权益保护法的权利的留学生作业 [3]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-12编辑:zcm84984点击率:11721
论文字数:3924论文编号:org201409201237377914语种:英语 English地区:加拿大价格:免费论文
关键词:Law EssayRight留学生作业权益保护法权利
摘要:本文是一篇关于权益保护法权利的留学生作业,宪法作为国家的最高法律,为公民提供了法律保护的权利。 [1]所有的人有权享受正当法律程序的权利。据认为,为了使正义得到切实有效地伸张,被指控犯罪的人,应该有一个迅速审判的过程。
d Another. The appellant’s appeal was allowed but the argument that the lengthy delay had prejudiced his trial and violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time was rejected. This was because he had failed to raise the issue of his constitutional rights being breached at his trial and at his appeal in the local courts. Thus, despite the six year delay, the accused was not afforded a stay of proceedings. It appears that the principle in the Commonwealth Caribbean is that a court will only grant a stay in exceptional circumstances, and only where prejudice is established. [12]
The constitutional issue of a trial within a reasonable time has been raised in jurisdictions outside of the Caribbean. In the Canadian case of R v. Askov, [13] the appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion in November 1983, and there was a two year delay between the preliminary hearing and the trial. At the trial, the appellants requested a stay on the grounds that the length of delay was unreasonable. It was held by the Supreme Court that the unreasonable delay was in contravention to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 11(b) which provided that anyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to fair hearing within a reasonable time.
This case is similar to Bell and Flowers in that it used the criteria established by Barker v Wingo to determine whether the defendants’ rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been breached. The court examined the factor of the length of delay. The court reasoned that an excessively long delay was inexcusable and unjustifiable. Lengthy delays in complex cases are understandably. However, the accused will be placed at an advantage if the Crown is the reason for the delay. The explanation of the delay was also a factor acknowledged by the courts. It was purported that once the delays were caused by the inadequate legal resources the Crown would be at fault and would have to provide justification for the delay. Additionally in determining whether the delay was reasonable, there should be a comparison between the cases and others which are of a better standard. Another factor examined by the courts was did the accused agree to the delay. It was said by the courts that this waiver “must be informed, unequivocal and freely given”. [14]
A case which is also worthy of note is Martin v Tauranga District Court, [15] where the appellant was charged with sexual violation in December 1992. Due to a delay attributable to the prosecutor a trial date was not available until 17 months after the first court appearance. The bail terms for the appellant were highly restrictive. The trial, when it was finally called, did not continue as the appellant appealed for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of undue delay. The Court of Appeal held that a 17 month delay from charge to trial date resulting from the unjustified action of the prosecutor amounted to “undue delay” under s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 [16] . The appeal was allowed and a stay of proceedings ordered.
Martin turned on the fact that the accused person’s bail terms were highly restrictive and the case even though it dealt with a serious matter was not complex. Additionally, the prosecutor’s removal of the trial date without a just cause and thus extending the time between the preliminary hearing and trial contributed to the infringement of the accused
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。