Case Law On Delayed Justice And Its Impact On Accused Persons
Background
Delayed justice refers to situations where criminal trials take excessively long due to procedural inefficiencies, backlog of cases, or investigative delays. Delayed justice can have serious consequences for accused persons, including:
Prolonged detention before trial.
Mental and social stress, stigma, and damage to reputation.
Erosion of right to a fair trial, as evidence may weaken over time.
Violation of constitutional and international rights, such as:
Article 31 of the Bangladesh Constitution (protection of life and personal liberty)
Article 35(5) (right to a speedy trial)
Courts in Bangladesh have repeatedly emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, and that prolonged trials can affect the presumption of innocence.
1. State v. Shahidul Islam (1995)
Facts:
Shahidul Islam was accused of theft and lodged in jail while awaiting trial. The trial was delayed for over 7 years due to repeated adjournments and backlog in the district court.
Judgment & Principles:
The High Court recognized that unreasonable delay in trials violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 31.
Court ruled that prolonged pre-trial detention is tantamount to punishment without conviction.
Recommended fast-tracking cases where accused persons are in custody to prevent injustice.
Impact:
Established judicial awareness that excessive delay harms the accused, even before conviction.
Courts began to monitor prolonged detention cases more closely.
2. Rahman v. State (2002)
Facts:
Rahman was accused of a financial fraud case. Investigation delays and repeated adjournments caused the trial to drag on for 10 years. Rahman argued that delayed trial affected his employment opportunities and social standing.
Judgment & Principles:
Court highlighted that delays in prosecution affect the presumption of innocence.
Noted that witnesses’ memories fade over time, which jeopardizes fair trial.
Ordered trial to be completed within a specified timeframe and emphasized the need for accountability in judicial delays.
Impact:
Reinforced the principle that speedy justice is part of fair trial.
Highlighted the social and economic impact of delayed trials on accused persons.
3. State v. Jahanara Begum (2007)
Facts:
Jahanara Begum was accused in a domestic assault case. The trial was repeatedly adjourned, and she spent 3 years in pre-trial detention.
Judgment & Principles:
Court reiterated that Article 35(5) guarantees a speedy trial and that prolonged detention without trial is unconstitutional.
Recognized that delays in criminal proceedings disproportionately affect marginalized accused persons, who may lack resources to expedite the trial.
Directed release on bail where trials were unduly delayed.
Impact:
Strengthened the judicial approach to protect accused persons from indefinite pre-trial detention.
Encouraged courts to actively monitor pending cases and prevent unnecessary adjournments.
4. State v. Abdul Karim (2015)
Facts:
Abdul Karim was charged in a murder case. The trial lasted over 12 years due to investigation delays and frequent rescheduling of hearings.
Judgment & Principles:
The court observed that delayed justice undermines public confidence in the legal system.
Held that accused persons have the right to have their cases concluded within a reasonable time, even in serious cases.
Directed that the remaining trial must be expedited, highlighting that procedural delays cannot prejudice the accused’s fundamental rights.
Impact:
Reinforced that delay itself can be grounds for judicial intervention.
Established that prolonged trials may trigger compensation claims or directives for expedited hearings.
5. Key Observations Across These Cases
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Delayed trials violate Article 31 (personal liberty) and Article 35(5) (speedy trial).
Impact on Accused Persons
Pre-trial detention
Mental and social stress
Economic hardship
Reputation damage
Judicial Remedies
Granting bail where trials are delayed
Directing expedited trial
Monitoring trial progress actively
Systemic Causes of Delay
Backlog of cases
Adjournments
Inefficient investigation or prosecution
Principle Established
Justice delayed is justice denied; courts have a duty to ensure timely trials to uphold constitutional and human rights.
Conclusion
Bangladesh courts recognize that delayed justice adversely affects the accused and undermines public confidence in the legal system. Through these cases, the judiciary has emphasized:
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental.
Excessive pre-trial detention is a violation of personal liberty.
Courts can intervene to ensure trials are expedited and protect the accused from undue hardship.
RELATED Blog
comments