D.T. -v- DPP [2007] IESC 2 (25 January 2007)

D.T. -v- DPP [2007] IESC 2 (25 January 2007)

The applicant failed to establish that the delay resulted in a real or serious risk of an unfair trial; issues of capacity or disability are not grounds for judicial review to prohibit a trial and are matters for the trial court.

Citation
[2007] IESC 2
Parties
Applicant/appellant: D. T.; Respondent/cross Appellant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Fitness to Stand Trial, Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Fitness to Stand Trial Prohibition of Criminal Trial

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. T.

Applicant/appellant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution deprived the applicant of a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether applicant's cognitive impairment justified prohibiting the trial
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in considering applicant's capacity in judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the delay resulted in a real or serious risk of an unfair trial; issues of capacity or disability are not grounds for judicial review to prohibit a trial and are matters for the trial court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal of applicant dismissed; trial in relation to P. K. not injuncted
  • Cross appeal of respondent dismissed; trial in relation to C. K. remains prohibited