英语论文网

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。这可能会在第20条中找到（1）其中规定，“法律规定，任何人被指控犯有刑事罪行，除非电荷被撤回，由一个独立而无偏倚的法庭给予一段合理时间内获得公平审讯。“

然而，延迟的长度是不可以说是一个人的权利，在合理的时间公平的听证会已经突破被认为是唯一的标准。在检察贝尔v及牙买加另一位董事的情况下 [2]，被告带来的议案，根据第20在合理的时间内他的宪法权利，获得公正审判（1）牙买加宪法受到了侵犯，因为于1982年他正在重新审判承诺在1977年即属违法。

Right To Secure Protection Of Law Essay

The constitution as the supreme law of the land provides the right to protection of the law. [1] All persons brought before the courts are entitled to due process of law. It is believed that in order for justice to be carried out efficiently and effectively, a person accused of a crime should have a speedy trial. This may be found in s 20(1) of the Constitution which states that ‘Whenever any person is charged with a criminal offense he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be afforded a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.’

However, the length of the delay is not the only criterion which needs to be considered before it can be said that a person’s right to be fair hearing within a reasonable time has been breached. In the Jamaican case of Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another [2] , the accused had brought a motion that his constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under s 20(1) of the Jamaican Constitution had been violated as he was being re-tried in 1982 for an offence that was committed in 1977. The case had numerous delays which were largely due to the prosecution and witnesses who were unavailable to be at the trial. It was held that a breach of the constitutional right to a fair trial may be established by examining “the length of the delay, the reasons alleged to justify it, the responsibility of the accused for asserting his rights, and any prejudice to the accused”. [3] Bell is significant in that it was virtually unprecedented in the Commonwealth Caribbean for criminal proceedings to be stayed by reason of delay in prosecution. [4] Thus, these four criteria are important and must be considered in relation to Mrs. Widow’s particular circumstances before it can be ascertained whether her constitutional right to a fair trial was breached.

These four criteria were laid down by Powell J in Barker v Wingo [5] and utilized in Bell in which the accused person’s appeal was allowed as it was found that his constitutional right to a fair hearing had been breached. The length of delay was found to be unreasonable and unfair to the accused. It was established in Barker v Wingo that it was difficult to identify conclusively when it was no longer reasonable for a trial to be heard. Nonetheless, an understanding of the concept of what constitutes a reasonable time is crucial as a prolonged delay could not only result in the release of an accused person but whether or not they are innocent.

The imprecision of what constitutes a fair hearing within a reasonable time has resulted in the courts attempting to balance the interests of the accused with those of society. According to Michael Code, there are certain interests protected by speedy trials. In his examination of the American and Canadian jurisdiction, he identified four such interests. There were liberty interests, security interests, fair trial interest and public