P. -v- D. P. P. & Anor [2009] IEHC 81 (02 February 2009)

P. -v- D. P. P. & Anor [2009] IEHC 81 (02 February 2009)

The application for prohibition was refused because the repeated discharges of the jury were not due to jury disagreement but to erroneous legal rulings, the case against the applicant was strong (including admissions), there was no excessive or prejudicial delay, no special stress or unfairness beyond the ordinary, and no cumulative circumstances justifying prohibition or injunction. The court found no legal or factual basis to restrain the fourth trial.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 81
Parties
Applicant: A. P.; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: Judges of the Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition/injunction
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Prohibition of Criminal Trial, Multiple Retrials, Fair Trial Rights, Delay in Prosecution, Discharge of Jury, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Prohibition of Criminal Trial Multiple Retrials Fair Trial Rights Delay in Prosecution Discharge of Jury +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. P.

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

Judges of the Circuit Court

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition/injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fourth criminal trial after three aborted trials (not due to jury disagreement) should be prohibited as an abuse of process or breach of fair trial rights under Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the cumulative effect of delay, stress, and repeated trials renders further prosecution unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The application for prohibition was refused because the repeated discharges of the jury were not due to jury disagreement but to erroneous legal rulings, the case against the applicant was strong (including admissions), there was no excessive or prejudicial delay, no special stress or unfairness beyond the ordinary, and no cumulative circumstances justifying prohibition or injunction. The court found no legal or factual basis to restrain the fourth trial.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of prohibition and injunction against further prosecution