Concerns over trial delay
Detention of a man arrested for murder in 2019 and facing a more than three-year wait for trial is ‘‘enormously oppressive’’ without valid reasons for keeping him behind bars, a human rights lawyer says.
David Charles Benbow is accused of killing his childhood friend Michael McGrath, 49, who vanished from his Christchurch home on May 21, 2017.
Benbow, who was arrested in September 2019, was scheduled to go on trial in August, but it has now been adjourned until February 13, 2023.
He applied for bail in the High Court at Christchurch, but was refused in February last year. He appealed to the Court of Appeal. That bid was dismissed too.
The reasons for refusing to release Benbow cannot be reported under the Bail Act. The trial adjournment is the outcome of pretrial proceedings that may not be published.
Lawyer Tony Ellis said according to international human rights legislation a person detained on a criminal charge is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.
He said while no definite time periods were stipulated as to what constituted ‘‘reasonable’’, keeping a person in custody for three and a half years was concerning.
Ellis referred to the case of Kyung Yup Kim, a South Koreanborn man arrested in New Zealand for murder, who spent five years and three months in jail before being granted bail while the extradition process rolled on. This was one of the longest periods someone had been kept in custody while awaiting trial in New Zealand, he said.
Simon McGrath, McGrath’s brother, told The Press the decision to postpone the trial to 2023 was ‘‘hugely disappointing’’ to the family and friends.
‘‘The trial had previously been adjourned six months and, given this week’s further 18-month adjournment, we would have hoped that the trial date could have been brought forward much sooner than 2023.
‘‘Once again this is a classic example of the justice system – it seems no consideration is given to the victims of crime.’’
High-profile lawyer Nigel Hampton, QC, said enshrined in the Bill of Rights was a right for anyone charged with a criminal offence to be tried without undue delay.
Deciding whether a trial was being unreasonably delayed was a nuanced discussion requiring context, he said. The police should have enough time to complete their investigation, while the defence should have enough time to prepare for trial.
‘‘The adage goes ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, but it is a balancing exercise.’’
Hampton said he found it puzzling why the trial would need to be postponed for as long as 18 months.
Benbow’s lawyer Margaret Sewell was unable to comment, other than to say the new trial date was the first available date the High Court could accommodate.
Law Society president Tiana Epati said while she was unable to comment on the details of Benbow’s case, she was concerned by defendants remaining on remand longer than was desirable.
‘‘We are aware that there have been delays in the progress of cases in the criminal jurisdiction in both the district and high courts, exacerbated by the alert level 4 lockdown in 2020.’’
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the delay.
‘‘The adage goes ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, but it is a balancing exercise.’’
Lawyer Nigel Hampton, QC