The High Court restrained the further prosecution of a man charged with assault causing harm after repeated delays prevented his summary trial from going ahead. The court found that the delays breached his constitutional right to an expeditious hearing.
The charge arose from an alleged workplace incident on 3 March 2003. A summons was issued almost six months later. The case was due to be heard in the District Court, but the matter was adjourned several times. The High Court judgment records that hearings scheduled for September 2004 and February 2005 could not proceed because the District Judge had to deal with other work. The next date was set for 13 July 2005, about two years and four months after the alleged offence.
The applicant sought judicial review to stop the prosecution. He argued that the delay was excessive, that he had not contributed to it, and that it created a risk of an unfair trial and impermissibly prejudiced his ability to defend himself. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that he had not demonstrated a real risk of unfairness or specific prejudice.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the applicant had not explained how the delay would make the trial unfair. However, the judge concluded that the overall length of the delay and the reasons for it supported an inference of prejudice. He attributed much of the delay to the District Court system’s inability to provide a hearing, alongside the initial delay in deciding whether to prosecute, which the judgment attributed to the complainant.
The judge said the right to an expeditious hearing was independent of the right to a fair trial and did not require specific prejudice to be demonstrated. He concluded that the delay itself, considered with its causes, breached that right. The court granted the relief sought in the applicant’s statement of grounds and restrained further prosecution of the charge.