翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ R v Kewelram ・ R v Khan ・ R v Khan (South Africa) ・ R v Khelawon ・ R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia ・ R v Korsten ・ R v Kouri ・ R v Krymowski ・ R v Laba ・ R v Labaye ・ R v Ladouceur ・ R v Latimer ・ R v AM ・ R v Andrews ・ R v Asante-Mensah ・ R v Askov ・ R v Attorney General for England and Wales ・ R v B ・ R v B (KG) ・ R v Badger ・ R v Bailey ・ R v Baillie ・ R v Barger ・ R v Bartle ・ R v Basi ・ R v Beaulac ・ R v Belnavis ・ R v Betts and Ridley ・ R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd ・ R v Birmingham City Council, ex p Equal Opportunities Commission Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク R v Askov ： ウィキペディア英語版 R v Askov ''R v Askov'', () 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed. The appellants argued successfully that criminal charges against them should be stayed on the grounds that their trial had been unreasonably delayed, contrary to the Charter’s guarantee under Section 11(b) that "Any person charged with an offence has the right... to be tried within a reasonable time." Disagreeing with the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Supreme Court found that the delays were indeed unreasonable and directed a stay of proceedings against the appellants. Thousands of pending criminal cases were consequently dismissed on similar grounds. == Background == Appelants Askov, Husse and Gugliotta were initially charged with conspiracy to commit extortion and related offences in November 1983. A date early in July 1984 was agreed on for the preliminary hearing, but the hearing was not completed until September. A trial date was set for October 1985, but the case could not be accommodated during this session, and trial was delayed until September 1986, nearly two years after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing. When the trial began, the accused moved for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of unreasonable delay. The trial judge granted the stay, finding longstanding, uncorrected institutional problems were the major cause of the delay. The Crown appealed the stay to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the stay, finding: "(1) that there was no misconduct on the part of the Crown resulting in the delay or any part of it; (2) that there was no indication of any objection by any of the appellants to any of the adjournments; (3) that there was no evidence of any actual prejudice to the appellants caused by the delay." (R. v. Askov ) () 2 S.C.R., at p. 1207 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Askov」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.