O'R. (D.) v. D.P.P. [2004] IESC 52 (30 July 2004)

O'R. (D.) v. D.P.P. [2004] IESC 52 (30 July 2004)

The Supreme Court held that the complainant's delay in reporting the alleged offences was due to the applicant's psychological control and dominion, rendering her incapable of complaining earlier. The delay was thus attributable to the applicant. The Court further held that neither the delay nor the pre-trial publicity created a real and serious risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed by appropriate directions from the trial judge. The applicant failed to discharge the onus of establishing a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.

Citation
[2004] IESC 52
Parties
Appellant/applicant: DO'R; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Pre Trial Publicity, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Pre Trial Publicity Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Judicial Review

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DO'R

Appellant/applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in reporting the alleged offences prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether pre-trial publicity created a real and serious risk of an unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the complainant's delay in reporting the alleged offences was due to the applicant's psychological control and dominion, rendering her incapable of complaining earlier. The delay was thus attributable to the applicant. The Court further held that neither the delay nor the pre-trial publicity created a real and serious risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed by appropriate directions from the trial judge. The applicant failed to discharge the onus of establishing a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the applicant refused
  • Prosecution may proceed