unreasonable delay in district courts

GilGrissom · 16-03-2006 7:06am #1

What period of time would be considered an unreasonable delay in proceeding with a court case. Eg where a garda continues to fail to show up and keeps getting the case adjourned.

At what stage could an accused aruge that their consituational rights are being infringed?

Gil

padser · 16-03-2006 12:18pm

why would someone in las vegas care about an unreasonable delay in a disctrict court in Ireland//??

hullaballoo · 16-03-2006 12:41pm

I don't think there is such a right. I mean, the court system is notoriously congested, so any delay is to be expected.

In practical terms, I'd be very surprised if any court were to allow the accused to benefit from any such delay, it would make a mockery of the criminal justice system.

mountainyman · 16-03-2006 2:12pm

hullaballoo wrote:

In praktical terms, I'd be very surprised if any court were to allow the accused to benefit from NE such D LA, it would moke a makery of the criminal justice system.

It depends; judges do throw cases out for delay. I only have anecdotal evidence but if the book of evidence is taking an unreasonable time to prepare the judge will censure the guards, subsequently they may strike the case out.

MM

hullaballoo · 16-03-2006 3:23pm

^^^ That's real funny there. Try quoting people properly in future r u wil b sry.

Eru · 16-03-2006 8:13pm

It really depends on the delays and why. If theres genuine reasons then the judge will usually not strike out but if you have no reason then the defence should request a strike out. Some judges are more lenient thatn others.

reality however shows that the majority of remands are requested by the defence and not the prosecution.

McFadden had a case stuck out recently, cant remember why but I believe there was huge delays in the case and I know cases can be struck out straight away if the prosecuting Garda doesnt attend court.

mountainyman · 16-03-2006 8:18pm

It would want to be a **** off a long delay though. I think the case law would allow delays of up to 6 years.

http://tinyurl.com/rk324

MM

Eru · 16-03-2006 8:21pm

mountainyman wrote:

It would want to be a **** off a long delay though. I think the case law would allow delays of up to 6 years.

http://tinyurl.com/rk324

MM

Bloody cheeck. 3 hearing dates were canceled because of delays by the defence!

GilGrissom · 17-03-2006 12:13am

The reason I asked was there was a case up in Gorey district court where a defendant was charged with non display of tax. The case was ongoing for over a year before the judge lost patience and struck out the case.

Each time the case came up the garda was not available and the case was put back for 3 months at a time. After the 3rd attempt to adjourn the defendant aruged that his right to due process and a speedy trial were being infringed. The judge agreed and the case was struck out with predjuice.

What I wanted to know was if there was any legal precedent for strike out due to delays?

TalkISCheap · 17-03-2006 11:11pm

The European Court is quite happy to say that your rights have been infringed, but you're hardly going to bring the case that far for something like a traffic offence. It's been done several times for more serious offences, though, as a last resort, and worked.

If your name had been released, and the case dragged on, you could argue that your right to a good name had been infringed because nothing had been proven against you, but you were still in the public eye as a criminal. I can think of at least one case where that's succeeded... But once again, not for a crime likely to be tried in the District Court.

EDIT: Have a (recent) case...

mountainyman · 18-03-2006 12:04am

GilGrissom wrote:

What I wanted to know was if there was any legal precedent for strike out due to delays?

The constitution says:
Article 38 1. No person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law.

So you can have a reasonably speedy trial (‘reasonably’ is the whole question)
The main case is:
DPP v. Arthurs [2000] (I believe this was to do with a road traffic offense.)
Judge O’Neill (in the High Court)
‘the delay … two years and three months approximately. For summary proceedings a delay of this length is well beyond … appropriate timeframe … and is in my opinion inordinate and excessive.’

Judge O’Neill put 2 tests down:
1 ‘the …accused … is likely to suffer an actual specified prejudice or that the length of the delay is so inordinate … that there is a real risk that the trial will be unfair.’
2 The other test is the reason for the delay this can be bad faith on the part of the DPP, negligence on the part of the gardai, overcrowded courts etc
Depending on the reason for the delay the prejudice against the accused needs to be more or less extreme. I suppose if the Gardai were looking to pull a stroke the judge would hammer them on delay.

You can be pretty sure that this is the law because in McGuire v. D.P.P. [2004] the Supreme Court used this test.

BUT:

In D.P.P. v. MacNeill [1999] 1 Judge O’Flaherty J said
'… the onus is on a defendant, asserting delay, to show that he has been prejudiced...'

Judges are arseholes who will jump through hoops to send you tp prison if they don't like you.

MM

Thirdfox · 18-03-2006 12:27am

mountainyman wrote:

Judges are arseholes who will jump through hoops to send you tp prison if they don't like you.
MM

Wouldn't mention that in court if I were you

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial, unbiased and defenders of all that is good and moral? There was a time when talk like :rolleyes: this would be regarded as contempt of court as far as I know

Eru · 18-03-2006 7:49am

Thirdfox wrote:

Wouldn't mention that in court if I were you

Aren't judges supposed to be impartial, unbiased and defenders of all that is good and moral? There was a time when talk like :rolleyes: this would be regarded as contempt of court as far as I know

Judges arent supposed to like anyone and they are supposed to send criminals to jail, INHO they dont do this enough.

Victor · 18-03-2006 9:11am

Of course, seeing as the district courts have a llimit to them in terms of what they can sentence you to, can that delay be seen as overly harsh? Its not like you are getting a life sentence or anything.

unreasonable delay in district courts

Comments