M.S. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions & ors [2015] IECA 309 (22 December 2015)

M.S. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions & ors [2015] IECA 309 (22 December 2015)

The Court held that, in light of Supreme Court authority, there is no fixed limitation period for prosecution of historical sexual offences, and the delays in this case, though exceptionally long, do not in themselves justify prohibition of trial. Potential prejudice from delay or missing evidence is best assessed by the trial judge. Adverse publicity does not warrant prohibition as the publicity had receded. However, joinder of additional charges not arising from the original District Court charges requires the applicant's consent under s. 4N of the 1967 Act, and such charges must be prosecuted separately if consent is not given.

Citation
[2015] IECA 309
Parties
Applicant/appellant: M. S.; Respondents/respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and varied
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Prejudicial Publicity, Joinder of Charges, Right to Fair Trial, Historical Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Prejudicial Publicity Joinder of Charges Right to Fair Trial Historical Sexual Offences

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. S.

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lapse of time since the alleged offences justifies restraining prosecution
  2. 2 Whether adverse pre-trial publicity justifies restraining prosecution
  3. 3 Whether joinder of additional charges without consent is lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, in light of Supreme Court authority, there is no fixed limitation period for prosecution of historical sexual offences, and the delays in this case, though exceptionally long, do not in themselves justify prohibition of trial. Potential prejudice from delay or missing evidence is best assessed by the trial judge. Adverse publicity does not warrant prohibition as the publicity had receded. However, joinder of additional charges not arising from the original District Court charges requires the applicant's consent under s. 4N of the 1967 Act, and such charges must be prosecuted separately if consent is not given.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and varied

Orders

  • Declaration that joinder of charges arising from six further complaints not sent forward from the District Court is governed by s. 4N of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 and requires the applicant's consent.
  • If consent is not given, such charges must be prosecuted separately.