J. (B.). v. D.P.P. [2003] IESC 69 (19 December 2003)

J. (B.). v. D.P.P. [2003] IESC 69 (19 December 2003)

The Supreme Court held that the applicant suffered both particular and general prejudice due to excessive and unexplained delay, including irretrievable loss of potentially exculpatory evidence and faded memories, especially regarding Garda investigation in 1990. The delay breached the applicant's right to trial with reasonable expedition and created a real risk of unfair trial. Relief was granted prohibiting further prosecution.

Citation
[2003] IESC 69
Parties
Applicant/respondent: B. J.; Respondent/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; order of High Court affirmed prohibiting prosecution.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Judicial Review, Prejudice Due to Delay
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Judicial Review Prejudice Due to Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. J.

Applicant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether excessive delay in prosecution breaches right to trial with reasonable expedition
  2. 2 Whether delay causes prejudice sufficient to restrain prosecution
  3. 3 Whether delay alone, absent demonstrated prejudice, can justify prohibition of trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the applicant suffered both particular and general prejudice due to excessive and unexplained delay, including irretrievable loss of potentially exculpatory evidence and faded memories, especially regarding Garda investigation in 1990. The delay breached the applicant's right to trial with reasonable expedition and created a real risk of unfair trial. Relief was granted prohibiting further prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; order of High Court affirmed prohibiting prosecution.

Orders

  • Director of Public Prosecutions restrained from taking further steps in prosecution of applicant on specified charges.
  • High Court order granting injunction affirmed.