Dunne -v- DPP [2009] IESC 14 (24 February 2009)

Dunne -v- DPP [2009] IESC 14 (24 February 2009)

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the absence of the CCTV video evidence created a real risk of an unfair trial, given the substantial independent evidence against him, including his apprehension with stolen property and a signed confession. The risk identified by the High Court was remote, not real.

Citation
[2009] IESC 14
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Robert Dunne; Respondent/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial) / Supreme Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; application for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Missing Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Prohibition of Prosecution, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Judicial Review Missing Evidence Right to Fair Trial Prohibition of Prosecution Disclosure Obligations

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Dunne

Applicant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial) / Supreme Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the absence of CCTV video evidence creates a real risk of an unfair trial for the accused
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to prohibit the prosecution due to missing evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the absence of the CCTV video evidence created a real risk of an unfair trial, given the substantial independent evidence against him, including his apprehension with stolen property and a signed confession. The risk identified by the High Court was remote, not real.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; application for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court restraining prosecution set aside.
  • Application for judicial review refused.