Murphy -v- D.P.P. & Ors [2007] IEHC 349 (23 October 2007)

Murphy -v- D.P.P. & Ors [2007] IEHC 349 (23 October 2007)

No blameworthy prosecutorial or systems delay was established; any delay was either justified, outside the respondents' control, or attributable to the applicant. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice to his defence arising from delay or from his memory impairment. The stress and anxiety suffered were not exceptional. There was no breach of constitutional or ECHR rights. Reliefs sought were refused.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 349
Parties
Applicant: Colm Murphy; First Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Named Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Reliefs refused; application for prohibition and declaration denied.
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Right to Fair Trial, Memory Impairment, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Prohibition of Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Prosecutorial Delay Right to Fair Trial Memory Impairment Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review +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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colm Murphy

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Named Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecutorial or systems delay prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair trial under the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's memory impairment rendered a fair trial impossible
  3. 3 Whether any blameworthy delay by the prosecution or court occurred

Ratio Decidendi

No blameworthy prosecutorial or systems delay was established; any delay was either justified, outside the respondents' control, or attributable to the applicant. The applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice to his defence arising from delay or from his memory impairment. The stress and anxiety suffered were not exceptional. There was no breach of constitutional or ECHR rights. Reliefs sought were refused.

Court Disposition

Reliefs refused; application for prohibition and declaration denied.