“Of course, no length of time is per se too long to pass scrutiny
under this principle nor the accused is called upon to show the
actual prejudice by delay of disposal of cases. On the other hand,
the court has to adopt a … balancing approach by taking note of
the possible prejudices and disadvantages to be suffered by the
accused by avoidable delay and to determine whether the accused
in a criminal proceeding has been deprived of his right of having
speedy trial with unreasonable delay which could be identified by
the factors
(1) length of delay,
(2) the justification for the delay,
(3)
the accused’s assertion of his right to speedy trial, and
(4)
prejudice caused to the accused by such delay. However, the fact
of delay is dependent on the circumstances of each case because
reasons for delay will vary, such as delay in investigation on
account of the widespread ramification of crimes and its designed
network either nationally or internationally, the deliberate absence
of witness or witnesses, crowded dockets on the file of the court
etc.”
1994 Cr. LJ 3139
USed in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal
70-09
0 Comments