99. The Court further observes that the record of proceedings at the High Court shows two (2) interrelated adjournments. The Court notes that the Prosecution closed its case on 30 November 2010. On the same day, the Applicant’s defence lawyer sought leave of the Court to begin the defence case. The trial judge dismissed this prayer as, “the case was fixed for trial for only two (2) days and today is the last day for this case”. For the court, the alternative was to adjourn the case to another date. At the behest of the court, this date was to be fixed by the District Registrar who, on 8 July 2011, set the period from 26 July 2011 to 27 July 2011 for the defence to stage its case. 100. In light of the above, the nature of the offence and the trial on the whole, the Court finds that the period of nine (9) months and sixteen (16) days taken to conclude the trial is reasonable. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter by reason of the time it took to conclude the Applicant’s trial before the High Court. ii. Alleged bias during the Applicant’s trial 101. The Applicant alleges that the trial court violated Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter by contravening the principle of presumption of innocence and by shifting the burden of proof to the Applicant when it observed that it was inconceivable why the Applicant failed to call witnesses to corroborate her defence. Additionally, the Applicant alleges that the record of proceedings demonstrates that the assessors cross-examined witnesses throughout the proceedings, which is unlawful. 102. In her Reply, the Applicant submits that the trial judge was prejudiced against her, which was demonstrated in two (2) respects, first, by relying on the prosecution’s “discriminatory preconceptions” that the Applicant is a “cruel woman”, rather than on the evidence of guilt. Second, the trial judge did not take into account the mitigating circumstances of the Applicant during sentencing. * 30