AP v DPP [2011] IESC 2 (25 January 2011)

AP v DPP [2011] IESC 2 (25 January 2011)

A fourth trial is not per se prohibited by law, statute, or the Constitution; the applicant failed to establish that a fourth trial would be inherently unfair or an abuse of process; the grounds for review were limited to the net issue pleaded, and no specific prejudice or real risk to a fair trial was demonstrated.

Citation
[2011] IESC 2
Parties
Applicant/appellant: A. P.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (criminal) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Right to Fair Trial, Multiple Trials, Prosecutorial Discretion, Judicial Review Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Abuse of Process Right to Fair Trial Multiple Trials Prosecutorial Discretion Judicial Review Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. P.

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a fourth criminal trial on the same charges is per se an abuse of process or a breach of the right to a fair trial under the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established grounds for prohibition of further prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

A fourth trial is not per se prohibited by law, statute, or the Constitution; the applicant failed to establish that a fourth trial would be inherently unfair or an abuse of process; the grounds for review were limited to the net issue pleaded, and no specific prejudice or real risk to a fair trial was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing prohibition affirmed
  • Relief sought by applicant refused