A.T. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] IECA 6 (24 January 2020)

A.T. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2020] IECA 6 (24 January 2020)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in granting prohibition (or injunction) against prosecution. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the absence of the deceased witnesses created manifest and unavoidable prejudice of such significance as to give rise to a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. The alleged prejudice was speculative and not sufficiently linked to the facts in issue. The proper forum for assessing any prejudice was the trial itself, where the trial judge could address such matters through rulings and directions. The exceptional threshold for prohibition was not met.

Citation
[2020] IECA 6
Parties
Applicant/respondent: A. T.; Respondent/appellant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (judicial Review) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of prohibition/injunction set aside
Legal Topics
Prohibition of Criminal Trial, Delay and Prejudice, Right to Fair Trial, Missing/deceased Witnesses, Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Judicial Review Prohibition of Criminal Trial Delay and Prejudice Right to Fair Trial Missing/deceased Witnesses Sexual Offences Abuse of Process

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. T.

Applicant/respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (judicial Review) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecution and loss of witnesses created a real risk of an unfair trial justifying prohibition/injunction against prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the High Court correctly applied the legal test for prohibition of criminal proceedings due to delay and prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in granting prohibition (or injunction) against prosecution. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the absence of the deceased witnesses created manifest and unavoidable prejudice of such significance as to give rise to a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. The alleged prejudice was speculative and not sufficiently linked to the facts in issue. The proper forum for assessing any prejudice was the trial itself, where the trial judge could address such matters through rulings and directions. The exceptional threshold for prohibition was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of prohibition/injunction set aside

Orders

  • Order of prohibition/injunction against the Director of Public Prosecutions set aside
  • Criminal proceedings against the respondent may proceed