D.P.P. (Harrington) v. Kilbride [1999] IEHC 111; [1999] 1 ILRM 452 (22nd February, 1999)

D.P.P. (Harrington) v. Kilbride [1999] IEHC 111; [1999] 1 ILRM 452 (22nd February, 1999)

The delay in prosecution, though regrettable, did not amount to an infringement of the accused's constitutional rights as there was no evidence of specific prejudice beyond ordinary anxiety and concern; thus, the delay did not warrant dismissal of the charge.

Citation
[1999] 1 ILRM 452
Parties
Accused: Mr. Liam Kilbride; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Criminal Case Stated / Consultative Case Stated From District Court to High Court
Outcome
charge not dismissed; question answered in the negative
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Reasonable Expedition, Prejudice Due to Delay
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Reasonable Expedition Prejudice Due to Delay

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Liam Kilbride

Accused

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal Case Stated / Consultative Case Stated From District Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecution warranted dismissal of the charge against the accused on grounds of unreasonable delay and prejudice.

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecution, though regrettable, did not amount to an infringement of the accused's constitutional rights as there was no evidence of specific prejudice beyond ordinary anxiety and concern; thus, the delay did not warrant dismissal of the charge.

Court Disposition

charge not dismissed; question answered in the negative

Orders

  • The circumstances do not disclose such unreasonable delay as would warrant dismissal of the charge.