Accessibility navigation

Was the Supreme Court right to change the law on the right to a speedy trial?

Sirota, L. (2017) Was the Supreme Court right to change the law on the right to a speedy trial? Constitutional Forum Constitutionelle, 26 (3). pp. 1-6. ISSN 0847-3889

Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.21991/C9FT21


In R v Jordan, the Supreme Court of Canada held, by a 5-4 majority and over the vigorous disagreement of the concurrence, that criminal prosecutions in which a trial does not conclude by a set deadline will be presumed to breach the right to be tried within a reasonable time, protected by section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The acceptable length of proceedings set out in the decision is of 18 months from the day charges are laid for cases that proceed without a preliminary inquiry, and 30 months otherwise. The Crown can still show that exceptional circumstances outside of its control have arisen and can explain — and excuse — a case taking longer than that, but unless it does so, a stay of proceedings will be the automatic consequence of such delay. Meanwhile, an accused will be able to show that delay below these ceilings is unconstitutionally unreasonable, but only by demonstrating not only that the delay is “markedly” greater than reasonable, but also that he or she diligently sought to have the case heard sooner.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:104578
Publisher:Centre for Constitutional Studies


Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation