When the High Court ordered the State to put mechanisms in place and allocate sufficient resources to ensure a rape trial is completed expeditiously, did it ascribe rights to a victim of crime that are not provided for under the Constitution?

Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams made the order in September 2023, when she declared that the failure to ensure criminal cases involving child victims were expeditiously concluded was a breach of their right to protection of the law.

Before the judge was the constitutional claim of a a rape victim who sued the State for the inordinate delay in treating with sexual offences.

The State has appealed the judge’s ruling.

Now, the Court of Appeal has to determine whether the judge correctly identified that victims of crime have rights, in particular the right to a speedy trial.

Attorneys for the State have asked Justices of Appeal Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson to vacate Quinlan-Williams’s ruling.

However, the victim’s attorneys insist the judge was correct to find she did have rights under the Constitution for protection by the law and a speedy trial.

“This is an important case...the court is being asked to consider the rights of a victim,” attorney Lee Merry argued in response to the State’s appeal. He contended that the judge recognised child victims were deserving of special protections by the State.

“The status of victims cannot be disputed…(nor) the duty of the State.

“The State needs victims to come forward, otherwise a perpetrator can continue to perpetrate crimes against others.

“The parties – the State and a victim – are interdependent on each other. It is complicated…But it is in the State’s interest the victim come forward. The State has a good reason to treat victims in a dignified manner, and speedy trials would encourage more victims to come forward.

“All of this is in the State’s interest.

“Do victims of crime have rights under the Constitution? This cannot be disputed.

"The State says no, they do not, the rights only apply to the accused.”

However, Merry maintained the rights afforded to a victim of crime were broader than those which specifically speak to an accused.

“The Constitution bestows rights to an individual. She (the victim) is an individual, a person who has rights. Why can’t she not enjoy the protection of the law and due process? The Constitution does not exclude victims. The State has not said why they (victims of crime) should be excluded,” he submitted.

Merry accused the State of attempting to “pigeonhole” the rights victims had.

“The court has to apply these rights broadly. Individual civil liberty concerns speedy trials,” he maintained.

Merry said the 4(a) right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law also applied to victims of crime; so, too, the 4(b) right of protection of the law.

“These rights (of the individual) are broad rights impossible to encapsulate in the Constitution…Yo