Speedy trial

In criminal law, the right to a speedy trial is a human right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely. Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial, expressed as the maxim Justice delayed is justice denied.

Although it is important for the protection of speedy trial rights for there to be a court in which a defendant may complain about the unreasonable delay of the trial, it is also important that nations implement structures that avoid the delay.^[1]

Jurimetrics allows to estimate the current judicial efficiency.^[2] Speedy justice tends to correlate with quality and fairness of justice.^[3]

Recognition of speedy trial rights

In jurisdictions with strong rule of law, the requirement of a "speedy trial" forces prosecutors to diligently build cases within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity and heinousness of the crimes of which suspects are accused. The right is based on the notion that long-term incarceration should normally be restricted to situations in which a judge or jury have determined a suspect has committed a crime.

The right to a speedy trial is codified in fundamental legal documents in several jurisdictions, and may be further defined by statutory law.

Canada

Speedy trial rights are recognized within Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In R v Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada held that these Charter rights are presumed to have been violated when the trial does not end within 18 months of the charges being filed, or 30 months when there is a preliminary inquiry. When speedy trial rights are violated, the Crown must drop relevant charges by entering a stay of proceedings.

Once the presumptive ceiling is exceeded, the burden is on the Crown to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness on the basis of exceptional circumstances outside the Crown's control.

Europe

Within Europe, speedy trial rights are recognized by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In English law, this right was developed by the Assize of Clarendon in 1166 (a judge would be summoned if one was not immediately available) and Magna Carta in 1215 ("To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.").^[4]

India

The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.^[5] There is no automatic legal remedy available to defendants who are denied speedy trials, rendering it difficult to hold judicial officers accountable for violations. ^[6]

Japan

The Article 37 [ja] of the Japanese Constitution states, "In all criminal cases the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal."^[7] Takada case [ja], which had not held a court for 15 years, was dismissed by Supreme Court of Japan according to Article 37.^[8] After the Takada case, it is considered that dismissing judge should only apply if the accused ask acceleration of a trial.

Philippines

The Constitution of the Philippines states, "All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies."^[9]

United States

In the United States, basic speedy trial rights are protected by the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. For federal charges, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 applies. The trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later.

The consequences of a speedy trial violation may require that the case be dismissed, although depending upon the circumstances it may be possible for the state to again initiate a criminal charge against a defendant despite a speedy trial violation.

Defendants may waive their right to a speedy trial for the purposes of negotiation.^[10][11]

State Law

States may offer speedy trial protections in addition to federal protections, which can vary significantly from the rights available under the federal Constitution and in federal courts under the Speedy Trial Act. In June 1776, a "speedy trial" provision was explicitly included in the Virginia Declaration of Rights by George Mason, its principal author.

California's right to a speedy trial is different in several ways from the federal right.^[12] In California, the right to a speedy trial attaches as soon as a felony complaint is filed (that is, as soon as the criminal action is initiated), while in federal courts, the right attaches at a later point, in the form of a "formal accusation" by indictment or information.^[12] In California, dismissal is automatic for a violation of the state statute implementing the state constitutional right to a speedy trial (Penal Code section 1382); no affirmative showing of prejudice is required.^[12] However, where there was no statutory violation but there may have been a state constitutional violation, then an affirmative showing of prejudice is required and the trial court can defer evaluation of a motion to dismiss to the end of trial in order to evaluate whether the evidence presented at trial shows that the defendant suffered actual prejudice from the delay.^[12] Unlike the federal constitutional right to a speedy trial, California does not treat a "uncommonly long" delay as giving rise to a presumption of prejudice under its state constitutional right to a speedy trial, meaning the defendant must show actual prejudice in the sense that evidence material to his defense was actually lost or damaged as a result of the delay.^[12]

See also

• Law reform
• Judicial reform
• Judicial review

References

1. Buonomo, Giampiero (2000). "Equa durata del processo: il risarcimento non risolve il problema". Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online. Archived from the original on 2012-08-01. ^{[permanent dead link‍]}
2. Unger, Adriana Jacoto; Neto, José Francisco dos Santos; Fantinato, Marcelo; Peres, Sarajane Marques; Trecenti, Julio; Hirota, Renata (21 June 2021). Process mining-enabled jurimetrics: analysis of a Brazilian court's judicial performance in the business law processing. ACM. pp. 240–244. doi:10.1145/3462757.3466137. ISBN 978-1-4503-8526-8.
3. Melcarne, Alessandro; Ramello, Giovanni B.; Spruk, Rok (2021). "Is justice delayed justice denied? An empirical approach". International Review of Law and Economics. 65: 105953. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105953.
4. Shestokas, David J. (13 November 2014). "Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Right: Ancient, Worthy and Elusive". David Shestokas. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
5. "Analysis of the legal position in India on speedy trial versus judicial delay". alrc.asia.
6. "Speedy justice is fundamental right: Madhya Pradesh HC". The Times of India. 2023-11-25. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
7. "日本国憲法 / The Constitution of Japan". www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
8. 日本国語大辞典, ブリタニカ国際大百科事典 小項目事典,朝日新聞掲載「キーワード」,デジタル大辞泉,百科事典マイペディア,世界大百科事典 第２版,大辞林 第三版,日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ),精選版 (14 July 2016). "免訴(めんそ)とは". コトバンク (in Japanese). Retrieved 2020-06-17.
9. "Constitution of the Philippines, Article III". Wikisource. Retrieved 28 September 2017.
10. Francis, Enjoli (4 December 2018). "Teenager who was badly injured after friend pushed her off bridge still 'looking for justice'". ABC News. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
11. Strom, Samuel, J.D.; Earhart, Rhonda, Esq. "Right to a Speedy Jury Trial". FindLaw.com. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
12. People v. Martinez, 22 Cal. 4th 750, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381, 996 P.2d 32 (2000).