英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心 我要定制

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

权益保护法的权利的留学生作业 [3]

论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-12编辑:zcm84984点击率:11712

论文字数:3924论文编号:org201409201237377914语种:英语 English地区:加拿大价格:免费论文

关键词:Law EssayRight留学生作业权益保护法权利

摘要:本文是一篇关于权益保护法权利的留学生作业,宪法作为国家的最高法律,为公民提供了法律保护的权利。 [1]所有的人有权享受正当法律程序的权利。据认为,为了使正义得到切实有效地伸张,被指控犯罪的人,应该有一个迅速审判的过程。

d Another. The appellant’s appeal was allowed but the argument that the lengthy delay had prejudiced his trial and violated his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time was rejected. This was because he had failed to raise the issue of his constitutional rights being breached at his trial and at his appeal in the local courts. Thus, despite the six year delay, the accused was not afforded a stay of proceedings. It appears that the principle in the Commonwealth Caribbean is that a court will only grant a stay in exceptional circumstances, and only where prejudice is established. [12]

The constitutional issue of a trial within a reasonable time has been raised in jurisdictions outside of the Caribbean. In the Canadian case of R v. Askov, [13] the appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion in November 1983, and there was a two year delay between the preliminary hearing and the trial. At the trial, the appellants requested a stay on the grounds that the length of delay was unreasonable. It was held by the Supreme Court that the unreasonable delay was in contravention to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 11(b) which provided that anyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to fair hearing within a reasonable time.

This case is similar to Bell and Flowers in that it used the criteria established by Barker v Wingo to determine whether the defendants’ rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been breached. The court examined the factor of the length of delay. The court reasoned that an excessively long delay was inexcusable and unjustifiable. Lengthy delays in complex cases are understandably. However, the accused will be placed at an advantage if the Crown is the reason for the delay. The explanation of the delay was also a factor acknowledged by the courts. It was purported that once the delays were caused by the inadequate legal resources the Crown would be at fault and would have to provide justification for the delay. Additionally in determining whether the delay was reasonable, there should be a comparison between the cases and others which are of a better standard. Another factor examined by the courts was did the accused agree to the delay. It was said by the courts that this waiver “must be informed, unequivocal and freely given”. [14]

A case which is also worthy of note is Martin v Tauranga District Court, [15] where the appellant was charged with sexual violation in December 1992. Due to a delay attributable to the prosecutor a trial date was not available until 17 months after the first court appearance. The bail terms for the appellant were highly restrictive. The trial, when it was finally called, did not continue as the appellant appealed for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of undue delay. The Court of Appeal held that a 17 month delay from charge to trial date resulting from the unjustified action of the prosecutor amounted to “undue delay” under s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 [16] . The appeal was allowed and a stay of proceedings ordered.

Martin turned on the fact that the accused person’s bail terms were highly restrictive and the case even though it dealt with a serious matter was not complex. Additionally, the prosecutor’s removal of the trial date without a just cause and thus extending the time between the preliminary hearing and trial contributed to the infringement of the accused论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。
英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非