D.P.P. v. Arthurs [1999] IEHC 73; [2000] 2 ILRM 363 (21st December, 1999)

D.P.P. v. Arthurs [1999] IEHC 73; [2000] 2 ILRM 363 (21st December, 1999)

A delay of two years and three months in bringing summary proceedings to trial is excessive and inordinate. Where such delay is caused in part by repeated failures to provide adequate court resources, resulting in repeated adjournments due to overcrowded lists, this constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the accused's constitutional right to an expeditious trial. Even absent proof of actual or presumptive prejudice, such delay requires the court to prohibit the trial from proceeding.

Citation
[2000] 2 ILRM 363
Parties
Accused: The Accused; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated (criminal Summary Proceedings) / High Court Review of District Court's Consultative Case Stated
Outcome
Application for dismissal on grounds of delay should have been granted; trial prohibited from proceeding.
Legal Topics
Right to Expeditious Trial, Delay in Criminal Proceedings, Summary Proceedings, Prejudice From Delay, State's Duty to Provide Resources
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Expeditious Trial Delay in Criminal Proceedings Summary Proceedings Prejudice From Delay State's Duty to Provide Resources

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Accused

Accused

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated (criminal Summary Proceedings) / High Court Review of District Court's Consultative Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a delay of 2 years and 3 months in summary proceedings amounts to injustice/prejudice to the accused
  2. 2 Whether the accused was prejudiced by the delay, particularly where evidence is based on recollection
  3. 3 Whether delay caused by overcrowded court lists can be justified by the State

Ratio Decidendi

A delay of two years and three months in bringing summary proceedings to trial is excessive and inordinate. Where such delay is caused in part by repeated failures to provide adequate court resources, resulting in repeated adjournments due to overcrowded lists, this constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the accused's constitutional right to an expeditious trial. Even absent proof of actual or presumptive prejudice, such delay requires the court to prohibit the trial from proceeding.

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal on grounds of delay should have been granted; trial prohibited from proceeding.

Orders

  • No reply required to questions (e) and (f) due to concession by accused's counsel.
  • Answers to case stated: (a) No, (b) Yes, (c) Yes, (d) No.