"It does not appear that any proceedings were commenced against this ship… until the latter end of February 1798, that is, for the space of above three months. However justifiable the seizure may have been, the first obligation which the seizor has to discharge is, that of accounting why he did not institute proceedings against this vessel and cargo immediately; and unless he can exculpate himself, with respect to delay in this matter, he is guilty of no inconsiderable breach of his duty. It would be highly injurious… if any persons… could lay their hands upon valuable foreign ships and cargoes, and keep their hands upon them, without bringing such an act to judicial notice in any manner, for the space of three or four months."
ראו גם עניין Jecker, בעמ' 501, שם ציטט בית-המשפט העליון האמריקני דברים אלה בהסכמה.
בכך ביטא בית-המשפט הגבוה לאדמירליות בבריטניה את הגישה שְחָלוף שלושה-ארבעה חודשים מהווה פרק-זמן בלתי-סביר לנקיטתו של הליך מלקוח. בית-המשפט ציין שם כי הוא יכול היה להבין עיכוב של שלושה שבועות לכל היותר (עניין Madonna, בעמ' 175-174). פסק-הדין תומך בגישה שהבאתהּ של האנייה בפני בית-המשפט למלקוח צריכה להתבצע תוך ימים או שבועות ספורים לכל היותר. בדומה, נקבע ב-The Corier Maritimo [1799] 1 C. Rob. 287 כי עיכוב של חודשיים הוא בלתי-סביר ואף נגוע ברשלנות. ביסודן של קביעות אלה מצויה זכאותהּ של האנייה ל-"speedy and unobstructed justice" (עניין Madonna, בעמ' 177).
- פסק-דין נוסף שאליו הפנתה המשיבה הוא עניין St. Juan Baptista. באותו מקרה חלף חודש בין מועד תפיסתהּ של האנייה לבין מועד הבאתהּ בפני בית-המשפט למלקוח. בית-המשפט ביקר באופן חריף את התנהלותהּ של בריטניה ופסק פיצויים לטובתהּ של האנייה, בין היתר עקב העיכוב בנקיטתו של הליך מלקוח כנגדהּ (שם, בעמ' 38-37; ההדגשות הוספו – מ.נ.):
"It remains only to consider the charge of improper conduct, which has been made against the captors. […] There was, I think, ground for inquiry; and if this inquiry had been pursued in a proper manner, and had terminated in proper time, I should held the captors fully justified in what they had done. But the subsequent proceeding here has been very different: The vessels were brought to Falmouth on the 12th of August; and the first question to be asked of the captors, and to which the court is bound to require satisfactory answer, is, why were no proceedings instituted till the 12th of September? –it must be understood by those who arm themselves with the commission of their country, that if they bring neutral ships into British ports, they must on no account detain them there without inquiry. Grievous would be injury to neutral trade, and highly disgraceful to the honor of our own country, if captors could bring in ships at their own fancy, and detain them any length of time, without bringing the matter to the cognizance of a Court of Justice. In the present instance this first and fundamental duty has not been performed. For a whole month, the obligation of taking the examination of witnesses, at the first moment, has been disregarded; and all the excuse offered, is some misapprehension about the want of qualification in the commissioners to examine the Spanish crew, without a Spanish Commission; which might have been instantly removed by application to the Actuary. The delay is, therefore, in the first stage, imputable to the captors; and if any inconvenience arises to the neutral merchants, it is no answer to say, that it was owing to a mistake."