Section 131: Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time—There had been a lapse

131. Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time—There had been a lapse of 12 years between the date on which the offence was reported and the date on which the appellant was convicted and sentenced. The prosecution submitted that the delay was largely due to the fault of the appellant and, in the circumstances, he could not take advantage of it to claim a breach of his constitutional rights. HELD section 10 (1) of the Constitution gives a defendant a right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law. These rights are separate and distinct. If a criminal case is not heard and completed within reasonable time, that will of itself constitute a breach of section 10 (1) whether or not the defendant had been prejudiced CON – 201 [Issue 1] The Constitution by the delay and however reprehensible his conduct may have been. An appropriate remedy should be afforded for such a breach, but the hearing should not be stayed or a conviction quashed on account of delay alone, unless (a) the hearing was unfair or (b) it was unfair to try the defendant at all. The matters complained of did not give rise to sufficient prejudice to appellant to justify a conclusion that the trial was unfair, and the conviction should not be set aside. The prison sentence was set aside and replaced with a fine of 10,000 rupees. Boolell v State (2006). D. Hearing in camera