Kelly -v- DPP [2007] IESC 69 (21 December 2007)

Kelly -v- DPP [2007] IESC 69 (21 December 2007)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of showing a real risk of an unfair trial due to the absence of fingerprint or palm mark evidence. The packaging was preserved and available for examination; the applicant never sought such examination. There was no evidential basis to conclude that the absence of fingerprints was due to any failure by the authorities, nor that such evidence would have been exculpatory. The absence of such evidence does not expose the applicant to a real or serious risk of an unfair trial.

Citation
[2007] IESC 69
Parties
Applicant/appellant: John Kelly; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Prohibit Retrial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Preservation of Evidence, Fair Trial Rights, Judicial Review, Misuse of Drugs, Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Preservation of Evidence Fair Trial Rights Judicial Review Misuse of Drugs Forensic Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kelly

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Judges of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Prohibit Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to take, retain, and preserve fingerprint or palm mark evidence from drug packaging and applicant's car deprived applicant of a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the absence of such evidence created a real risk of an unfair retrial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of showing a real risk of an unfair trial due to the absence of fingerprint or palm mark evidence. The packaging was preserved and available for examination; the applicant never sought such examination. There was no evidential basis to conclude that the absence of fingerprints was due to any failure by the authorities, nor that such evidence would have been exculpatory. The absence of such evidence does not expose the applicant to a real or serious risk of an unfair trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court affirmed
  • Retrial not prohibited