Judgment No. CCZ 13/2015 13 Const. Application No. CCZ 56/13 WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY [33] The question of prejudice is to be assessed in the light of the interests of the applicant which the speedy trial right was designed to protect. Three such interests have been identified by this Court: (a) to prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration (b) to minimise anxiety and concern on the part of the accused, and (c) to limit the possibility that the defence will be impaired – Barker v Wingo 407 US 514 (1972) at 530-532 cited with approval in Fikilini v Attorney General (supra), at 112 and in In re Mlambo (supra) at 350 G-H – 351 A-B. [34] The two questions of oppressive pre-trial incarceration and the possibility of impairment of the applicant in conducting his defence do not arise in the present matter. This is for obvious reasons. Once the applicant was found guilty and no extenuating circumstances found in 2003 or 2004, the question of oppressive pre-trial incarceration cannot therefore arise. So too is the consideration that the applicant would be impaired in conducting his defence, for there was no further evidence to be led or witnesses to be called. [35] That the applicant must have suffered considerable anxiety for the duration of his incarceration cannot be doubted. [36] In his affidavit, the applicant says the church that he had founded has collapsed, whilst two of his four wives have died of aids-related illnesses as they had to engage in sexual immorality to fend for themselves in his absence. His eldest son also committed suicide. [37] As GUBBAY JA stated in In re Mlambo (supra), at 344 B-C