M.M. -v- DPP [2007] IESC 1 (23 January 2007)
The appellant failed to establish either that it would be unfair to put him on trial or that there would be a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial. The presence of admissions and the overall context mean that fairness requires the issues to be resolved by a jury. No blameworthy delay or operative prejudice was established.
- Citation
- [2007] IESC 1
- Parties
- Appellant/applicant: M. M.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 23 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Prosecutorial Delay, Prejudice, Fair Trial, Judicial Review, Sexual Offences
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M. M.
Appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether prosecutorial or complainant delay and alleged prejudice justify restraining prosecution for historic sexual offences
- 2 Whether there is a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial due to delay or prejudice
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to establish either that it would be unfair to put him on trial or that there would be a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial. The presence of admissions and the overall context mean that fairness requires the issues to be resolved by a jury. No blameworthy delay or operative prejudice was established.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Prosecution may proceed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment