D. (D.) v. D.P.P [2004] IESC 33 (19 May 2004)

D. (D.) v. D.P.P [2004] IESC 33 (19 May 2004)

The appeal was dismissed because the delay in reporting was adequately explained by the complainant's psychological and social circumstances, there was no actual or presumptive prejudice to the defence, and the established legal principles did not require prohibition of the trial in these circumstances.

Citation
[2004] IESC 33
Parties
Appellant/applicant: D. D.; Defendant/respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Injunction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Judicial Review, Prejudice to Defence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Judicial Review Prejudice to Defence

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. D.

Appellant/applicant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court Refusal of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-complaint delay in reporting sexual offences justifies prohibiting prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the delay constituted a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial or to trial with reasonable expedition
  3. 3 Whether actual or presumptive prejudice to the defence exists due to the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the delay in reporting was adequately explained by the complainant's psychological and social circumstances, there was no actual or presumptive prejudice to the defence, and the established legal principles did not require prohibition of the trial in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order refusing injunction affirmed
  • Trial may proceed