Cases Where Delay Was Caused by Both the Defendant and the Prosecution - Research Paper Example

The ‘reasonable’ time is subject to interpretation and depends on the convolution and circumstances of a specific case.
A court issues a continuance to allow the parties adequate time to:
• Consult witnesses
• Review the presented evidence
• Hold lawyer-client consultations
• Investigate the facts of the case
• Perchance negotiation for a plea
Sample cases where both the prosecution and the defendant sought discontinuance
The case of Mark Bridger
Mark Bridger (defendant) vs. prosecution
Mold crown court
Mark Bridger was accused of abducting and killing April Jones, a five-year-old infant. The case brought to the limelight the prevalent child abuse that has recently domineered Britain. The former abattoir worker and lifeguard, according to previous evidence, had murdered, obscured, and disposed of the body of the child to ensure that any search by the police will be futile. As the case was proceeding, the prosecution found fresh evidence. Fragments of bones confirmed to be April’s remains were found in the man’s bath plughole and fireplace. Additionally, explicit images of child sex abuse were found in Mark’s laptop, a fact that prompted a fresh debate over a link between the viewing of such images and sexual killings.

The prosecution had also discovered, through detectives, several tapes in Mark’s DVD player, tapes that were dominated with murder and rape. April’s family wanted Mark’s cottage demolished while the prosecution wanted him to explain the source of the tapes and the bones. The prosecution believed that it could garner more evidence against Mark if given more time. The lead prosecutor also said that “computer evidence points towards an individual who is evil, manipulative and has premeditated .” The prosecution team, therefore, wanted more time to gather parts of the girl’s body. Mark wanted more time to defend the new evidence that had emerged. The murder case of Hama Faraj Noori (2013)
Pawel Bugajski, Hyson Green, and Patryk Strutkowski (defendants) vs. the state (prosecution)
Nottingham County Court
The defendants were indicted for murdering Hama Faraj Noori, 56, in his flat after executing the murder plan in a bar. The defendants claimed that they were not ready to defend themselves and the judge allowed them more time to establish a legal team. The defendants had realized that the prosecutor had garnered fresh evidence that would prove quite challenging to defend and wanted more time to assemble facts of the case and conduct some consultations with the relevant authorities. Moreover, the prosecution wanted more time to prepare witnesses that would provide evidence in court. Additionally, the prosecution wanted the 3 men to be under a mental examination to prove their lucidity after the three initially denied the killings. Upon examination of the reasons presented by the defendant and prosecution, the court found it convincing to issue discontinuance.