Remedies for Breach of the Right to be Tried Without Undue Delay: To Stay or Not to Stay?
This paper considers what the consequences should be when the right to be “tried without undue delay” is breached. The current New Zealand approach is that a stay of proceedings is a required remedy only in limited cases, and breaches can often be remedied by sentence reductions or monetary damages...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Language: | en_ca |
| Published: |
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1807/18766 |
| Summary: | This paper considers what the consequences should be when the right to be “tried without undue delay” is breached. The current New Zealand approach is that a stay of proceedings is a required remedy only in limited cases, and breaches can often be remedied by sentence reductions or monetary damages. This is contrasted with the Canadian Courts’ requirement that a stay of proceedings must be ordered in any case of breach. This paper explains why a stay of proceedings is not the minimum remedy, and shows how the New Zealand courts’ approval of alternative remedies aligns with the purposes and principles of constitutional remedies. It also shows that there can be both benefits and pitfalls to New Zealand courts referring to foreign judgments, and illustrates the need for the New Zealand courts to engage with theoretical principles of constitutional remedies. |
|---|