Scully -v- DPP [2005] IESC 11 (16 March 2005)

Scully -v- DPP [2005] IESC 11 (16 March 2005)

The applicant’s delay in seeking judicial review was significant and unexplained, indicating the application was based on a remote or theoretical possibility rather than a real risk of unfair trial. The CCTV footage was, on uncontroverted evidence, of no evidential value and did not cover the relevant area. The duty...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] IESC 11
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Michael Scully; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (criminal) Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Preservation of Evidence, Delay in Seeking Relief, Right to Fair Trial, Disclosure Obligations, Cctv/video Evidence
Criminal Law Judicial Review Evidence Preservation of Evidence Delay in Seeking Relief Right to Fair Trial Disclosure Obligations Cctv/video Evidence

Source-derived case record

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

Michael Scully

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (criminal) Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure by the gardaí to preserve CCTV footage amounted to a breach of the State’s duty to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence
  2. 2 Whether the applicant’s delay in seeking judicial review disentitled him to relief
  3. 3 Scope of the duty on police to seek out and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s delay in seeking judicial review was significant and unexplained, indicating the application was based on a remote or theoretical possibility rather than a real risk of unfair trial. The CCTV footage was, on uncontroverted evidence, of no evidential value and did not cover the relevant area. The duty to preserve evidence is subject to reasonable practicality, and the applicant failed to engage with the actual state of the evidence. Relief was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • Prosecution may proceed