J.F. -v- DPP [2005] IESC 24 (26 April 2005)

J.F. -v- DPP [2005] IESC 24 (26 April 2005)

Where the prosecution relies on expert psychological evidence based on direct assessment of the complainant, fairness and equality of arms require that the defence be permitted a similar opportunity for assessment. Denial of such opportunity deprives the defence of the right to present rebutting evidence and to prepare for effective cross-examination, violating fair procedures under Irish constitutional law and the ECHR. The complainant, having instituted proceedings, is analogous to a plaintiff in civil litigation and cannot withhold consent to assessment without consequence to the prosecution's case.

Citation
[2005] IESC 24
Parties
Applicant/appellant: JF; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Fair Procedures, Expert Evidence, Equality of Arms, Disclosure, Right to Cross Examine, Judicial Review, Psychological Assessment
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Fair Procedures Expert Evidence Equality of Arms Disclosure Right to Cross Examine +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JF

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the complainant independently assessed by an expert of his choosing to rebut the prosecution's expert psychological evidence
  2. 2 Whether refusal of such assessment violates fair procedures and equality of arms under Irish law and the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

Where the prosecution relies on expert psychological evidence based on direct assessment of the complainant, fairness and equality of arms require that the defence be permitted a similar opportunity for assessment. Denial of such opportunity deprives the defence of the right to present rebutting evidence and to prepare for effective cross-examination, violating fair procedures under Irish constitutional law and the ECHR. The complainant, having instituted proceedings, is analogous to a plaintiff in civil litigation and cannot withhold consent to assessment without consequence to the prosecution's case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 of the respondent’s Statement of Opposition struck out
  • Affidavit of Simon Wale and exhibits thereto struck out