Diss.--Recht--Konstanz, 1994. / Bibliogr. p. 229-250.

Some academics and government officials have implicated defence counsel as the primary ‘villains’ in lengthy case processing times in Ontario bail courts. It has been suggested that defence counsel contribute to increasing case processing time through their use of ‘unproductive’ adjournments. This study examines this allegation through semi-structured interviews with defence counsel who practise in one Eastern Ontario bail court. The findings put the evidence that blames defence counsel into context and show that the explanations for their conduct are more complex than they may initially appear. They also reveal several explanations for bail inefficiency which are unrelated to the role of defence counsel but correspond grosso modo to the traditional factors associated with lengthy case processing time in the broader court process. The study concludes that although defence counsel are partly responsible for lengthy case processing times in bail court, they are only one contributor among many others.

Some academics and government officials have implicated defence counsel as the primary ‘villains’ in lengthy case processing times in Ontario bail courts. It has been suggested that defence counsel contribute to increasing case processing time through their use of ‘unproductive’ adjournments. This study examines this allegation through semi-structured interviews with defence counsel who practise in one Eastern Ontario bail court. The findings put the evidence that blames defence counsel into context and show that the explanations for their conduct are more complex than they may initially appear. They also reveal several explanations for bail inefficiency which are unrelated to the role of defence counsel but correspond grosso modo to the traditional factors associated with lengthy case processing time in the broader court process. The study concludes that although defence counsel are partly responsible for lengthy case processing times in bail court, they are only one contributor among many others.

Some academics and government officials have implicated defence counsel as the primary ‘villains’ in lengthy case processing times in Ontario bail courts. It has been suggested that defence counsel contribute to increasing case processing time through their use of ‘unproductive’ adjournments. This study examines this allegation through semi-structured interviews with defence counsel who practise in one Eastern Ontario bail court. The findings put the evidence that blames defence counsel into context and show that the explanations for their conduct are more complex than they may initially appear. They also reveal several explanations for bail inefficiency which are unrelated to the role of defence counsel but correspond grosso modo to the traditional factors associated with lengthy case processing time in the broader court process. The study concludes that although defence counsel are partly responsible for lengthy case processing times in bail court, they are only one contributor among many others.

<p><font size="3"> <p>In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government&rsquo / s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.</p> </font></p>

<p><font size="3"> <p>In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions, the presumption of innocence is a guaranteed constitutional right. The rationale of the presumption lies in the protection which it offers, since a person charged with a criminal offence stands to lose dearly in personal liberty, in social life and psychological well-being. The presumption is, therefore, a pivotal element of a culture of democracy and human rights. This study is prompted by the realisation that the presumption of innocence, which ought to constitute one of the most fundamental rights in any criminal justice system, is being eroded steadily in South Africa. In this regard, a significant area of concern is the current bail laws which, in my estimation, make a big dent into the right to be presumed innocent. The bail laws are part of government&rsquo / s policies directed at fighting crime. However, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to reverse the hard-won rights of the accused and threatens to undermine individual liberty. Also, these measures are incompatible with the constitutional commitment to a culture of human rights.</p> </font></p>

Inaug. _ Diss.: Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Fakultät: Zürich: 1976. _ Bibliogr. p. XI-XIV.

Please read the abstract in the section 00front of this document Please note that the used copy of this thesis does not contain pages xx-xxi of the list of abbreviations / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Jurisprudence / LLD / Unrestricted

Some academics and government officials have implicated defence counsel as the primary ‘villains’ in lengthy case processing times in Ontario bail courts. It has been suggested that defence counsel contribute to increasing case processing time through their use of ‘unproductive’ adjournments. This study examines this allegation through semi-structured interviews with defence counsel who practise in one Eastern Ontario bail court. The findings put the evidence that blames defence counsel into context and show that the explanations for their conduct are more complex than they may initially appear. They also reveal several explanations for bail inefficiency which are unrelated to the role of defence counsel but correspond grosso modo to the traditional factors associated with lengthy case processing time in the broader court process. The study concludes that although defence counsel are partly responsible for lengthy case processing times in bail court, they are only one contributor among many others.

No description available.