Devoy -v- DPP [2008] IESC 13 (07 April 2008)

Devoy -v- DPP [2008] IESC 13 (07 April 2008)

The Supreme Court held that while there was inordinate and blameworthy prosecutorial delay, the applicant did not demonstrate any specific prejudice, impairment of fair trial rights, or other protected interests affected by the delay. The correct legal test, as restated in P.M. v. DPP [2006] 3 IR 174, requires more than blameworthy delay; one or more interests protected by the right to an expeditious trial must be shown to have been so interfered with as to entitle the applicant to relief. The High Court erred by not applying this test. Given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's confession, absence of stress or anxiety evidence, and no real risk of unfair trial, prohibition...

Citation
[2008] IESC 13
Parties
Applicant/respondent: John Devoy; Respondent/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Prohibiting Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; prosecution may proceed.
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Right to Speedy Trial, Judicial Review, Prohibition of Criminal Trial, Balancing Test Between Public Interest and Accused's Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prosecutorial Delay Right to Speedy Trial Judicial Review Prohibition of Criminal Trial Balancing Test Between Public Interest and Accused's Rights

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Devoy

Applicant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Prohibiting Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate and blameworthy prosecutorial delay alone entitles an accused to prohibition of trial
  2. 2 Whether absence of specific prejudice or impairment of fair trial rights precludes prohibition
  3. 3 Proper test for granting prohibition in cases of prosecutorial delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while there was inordinate and blameworthy prosecutorial delay, the applicant did not demonstrate any specific prejudice, impairment of fair trial rights, or other protected interests affected by the delay. The correct legal test, as restated in P.M. v. DPP [2006] 3 IR 174, requires more than blameworthy delay; one or more interests protected by the right to an expeditious trial must be shown to have been so interfered with as to entitle the applicant to relief. The High Court erred by not applying this test. Given the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's confession, absence of stress or anxiety evidence, and no real risk of unfair trial, prohibition...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; prosecution may proceed.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court restraining prosecution set aside
  • Trial of the applicant may proceed