Cosgrave v DPP & anor [2012] IESC 24 (26 April 2012)

Cosgrave v DPP & anor [2012] IESC 24 (26 April 2012)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting prohibition of the trial. The non-disclosure of the 16 March 2004 statement did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial as he was aware of the corruption allegations during the first prosecution. No legitimate expectation arose that no further charges would be brought, as there was no representation by the DPP to that effect. The delay in prosecution was justified by the need to prosecute Frank Dunlop first. The charges are distinct and do not violate double jeopardy or fair trial rights. There was no abuse of process.

Citation
[2012] IESC 24
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Liam Cosgrave; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; prohibition refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Legitimate Expectation, Double Jeopardy, Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Abuse of Process Disclosure Legitimate Expectation Double Jeopardy +2 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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liam Cosgrave

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution of the appellant on corruption charges after a prior conviction for related electoral offences constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of certain statements by a key witness (Frank Dunlop) prior to the first prosecution prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation that no further charges would be brought

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting prohibition of the trial. The non-disclosure of the 16 March 2004 statement did not prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial as he was aware of the corruption allegations during the first prosecution. No legitimate expectation arose that no further charges would be brought, as there was no representation by the DPP to that effect. The delay in prosecution was justified by the need to prosecute Frank Dunlop first. The charges are distinct and do not violate double jeopardy or fair trial rights. There was no abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; prohibition refused

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the High Court refusing prohibition is affirmed.