Do I Have a Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time?

Delay is the most common complaint about the courts in Papua New Guinea, and it is a constitutional issue, not merely an administrative one.

What counts as “a reasonable time”?

The Constitution sets no fixed period, and no fixed period would work: a complex fraud trial and a simple assault are not comparable. The assessment is contextual, and the factors courts weigh are recognisable:

• The length of the delay, measured from charge (or from committal) to hearing.
• The complexity of the case — number of accused, volume of evidence, forensic or overseas material.
• The conduct of the accused — adjournments sought, non-appearance, changes of representation.
• The conduct of the prosecution and the State — incomplete files, missing witnesses, unavailability of counsel.
• Systemic causes — circuit scheduling, judicial availability, court resources. These explain delay; they do not, on their own, make it reasonable.
• The prejudice to the accused — above all, whether they are in custody.

Section 37(14) — the four-month report

If the trial of a person is not commenced within four months of the date on which they were committed for trial, a detailed report concerning the case shall be made by the Chief Justice to the Minister responsible for the National Legal Administration.

This is a standing constitutional trigger, and it is worth invoking. If you or a relative were committed more than four months ago and no trial has started, that fact engages section 37(14) directly — raise it in writing with the court registry and with your lawyer.

Unreasonable remand — section 42(5)

Where the person is in custody awaiting trial, the more powerful provision is often section 42(5). Where complaint is made to the National Court or a Judge that a person is unlawfully or unreasonably detained:

1. the Court or Judge shall inquire into the complaint and order the person to be brought before it; and
2. unless satisfied that the detention is lawful and — in the case of a person on remand pending trial — that it does not constitute an unreasonable detention having regard, in particular, to its length, the Court or Judge shall order release, either unconditionally or on conditions.

Two features make this the practical remedy for delay. The Constitution singles out length of remand as a specific ground. And the complaint is not a formal application drafted by a lawyer: a complaint made to the National Court or a Judge is enough to engage the duty to inquire.

Delay in civil cases

Section 37(11) applies the same standard to the determination of civil rights and obligations, and extends beyond courts to any authority prescribed by law or agreed upon by the parties — tribunals, boards and arbitrators included. A tribunal that sits on a decision for years is not merely inefficient; it is engaging a constitutional guarantee.

Practical routes in a civil matter include applying to the court for directions or an expedited hearing, and, where a public authority is the cause, complaining to the Ombudsman Commission, whose jurisdiction covers defective administration.

What a court can order

Under section 57, a court with jurisdiction may make all such orders and declarations as are necessary or appropriate. In delay cases that has included release from custody or variation of bail, directions fixing a hearing date, a declaration that the right has been infringed, and — under section 58 — reasonable damages and, if the court thinks it proper, exemplary damages.

Section 57(4) also allows any court, tribunal or authority to adjourn or delay a decision in proceedings before it so that a question about the effect or application of the Basic Rights Division can be determined.