McFarlane -v- DPP McFarlane -v- DPP [2008] IESC 7 (05 March 2008)

McFarlane -v- DPP McFarlane -v- DPP [2008] IESC 7 (05 March 2008)

The Supreme Court held that while some periods of delay were excessive, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was so blameworthy or prejudicial as to warrant prohibition of his trial. The balancing exercise, considering the seriousness of the offences and the absence of actual prejudice, did not justify prohibition. The rule in Henderson v Henderson did not bar the claim, but the substantive threshold for prohibition was not met.

Citation
[2008] IESC 7
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Brendan McFarlane; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Notice Parties: Members of the Special Criminal Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Systemic Delay, Right to Fair Trial, Article 38.1 Constitution, Article 6 ECHR, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Prosecutorial Delay Systemic Delay Right to Fair Trial Article 38.1 Constitution Article 6 ECHR +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan McFarlane

Applicant/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Members of the Special Criminal Court

Notice Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal of Prohibition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecutorial and/or systemic delay breached the applicant's right to a trial with reasonable expedition under Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to prohibition of his trial due to such delay
  3. 3 Whether the rule in Henderson v Henderson or abuse of process precluded the applicant from raising systemic delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that while some periods of delay were excessive, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was so blameworthy or prejudicial as to warrant prohibition of his trial. The balancing exercise, considering the seriousness of the offences and the absence of actual prejudice, did not justify prohibition. The rule in Henderson v Henderson did not bar the claim, but the substantive threshold for prohibition was not met.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing prohibition affirmed.