Nash -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC 51 (13 July 2017)

Nash -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC 51 (13 July 2017)

The Supreme Court held that while two factual inaccuracies in the damages judgment were identified and corrected, neither error was material to the assessment of culpable delay or the outcome. The threshold for reopening a final Supreme Court judgment under Article 34.4.6 was not met, as no breach of constitutional justice or objective bias was established. The corrections did not alter the finding that there was no culpable delay, and the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] IESC 51
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Mark Nash; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Application to Set Aside Supreme Court Judgment and Correct Factual Errors
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Finality of Judgments, Correction of Factual Errors, Judicial Review, Delay in Criminal Proceedings, Damages for Breach of Timely Trial Rights
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Finality of Judgments Correction of Factual Errors Judicial Review Delay in Criminal Proceedings Damages for Breach of Timely Trial Rights

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Nash

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Application to Set Aside Supreme Court Judgment and Correct Factual Errors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether factual errors in a Supreme Court judgment warrant setting aside or correction of the judgment
  2. 2 Threshold for reopening final Supreme Court decisions under the Constitution
  3. 3 Materiality of factual errors to the outcome of damages claim for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while two factual inaccuracies in the damages judgment were identified and corrected, neither error was material to the assessment of culpable delay or the outcome. The threshold for reopening a final Supreme Court judgment under Article 34.4.6 was not met, as no breach of constitutional justice or objective bias was established. The corrections did not alter the finding that there was no culpable delay, and the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Damages judgment corrected to clarify factual errors regarding location of forensic exhibits and timing of forensic technology availability
  • No further amendments to judgment