Blood -v- DPP [2005] IESC 8 (02 March 2005)

Blood -v- DPP [2005] IESC 8 (02 March 2005)

The cumulative prosecutorial delay between March 1998 and January 2001 was inordinate and not properly excused. The respondent failed to provide adequate justification for periods of delay after decision to prosecute. The delay itself, given its magnitude and circumstances, was sufficient to require prohibition of further prosecution, even absent proof of specific prejudice. Applicant's constitutional right to trial with reasonable expedition was violated.

Citation
[2005] IESC 8
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Darren Bernard Blood; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition/injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; prosecution prohibited
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Expeditious Hearing, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prosecutorial Delay Right to Fair Trial Right to Expeditious Hearing Abuse of Process

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Bernard Blood

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition/injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecutorial delay violated applicant's constitutional rights to fair procedures and expeditious hearing
  2. 2 Whether delay justified prohibition of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative prosecutorial delay between March 1998 and January 2001 was inordinate and not properly excused. The respondent failed to provide adequate justification for periods of delay after decision to prosecute. The delay itself, given its magnitude and circumstances, was sufficient to require prohibition of further prosecution, even absent proof of specific prejudice. Applicant's constitutional right to trial with reasonable expedition was violated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; prosecution prohibited

Orders

  • Prohibition granted restraining further prosecution of applicant
  • High Court order refusing relief set aside