C. (F.) v. Kirby & Anor [2005] IEHC 445 (11 February 2005)

C. (F.) v. Kirby & Anor [2005] IEHC 445 (11 February 2005)

The court held that the return for trial was ultra vires and should be quashed by certiorari. However, the delay in prosecution, though unusual, was primarily caused by the applicant's own conduct, dominion, and intimidation over the complainants, which inhibited earlier complaints. The delay did not, in itself, justify prohibition of the trial, and the applicant was not entitled to further relief on grounds of delay or alleged prejudice.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 445
Parties
Applicant: F. C.; First Respondent: Judge Brian Kirby; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Certiorari granted quashing the return for trial; prohibition of trial on grounds of delay refused.
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Ultra Vires Acts, Natural Justice, Dominion and Intimidation, Withdrawal of Complaints
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Ultra Vires Acts +3 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. C.

Applicant

Judge Brian Kirby

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari and Prohibition of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the return for trial was ultra vires and should be quashed
  2. 2 Whether prosecutorial and complainant delay breached the applicant's constitutional right to a fair trial and due process
  3. 3 Whether intimidation, dominion, and familial relationships justified the delay in complaints

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the return for trial was ultra vires and should be quashed by certiorari. However, the delay in prosecution, though unusual, was primarily caused by the applicant's own conduct, dominion, and intimidation over the complainants, which inhibited earlier complaints. The delay did not, in itself, justify prohibition of the trial, and the applicant was not entitled to further relief on grounds of delay or alleged prejudice.

Court Disposition

Certiorari granted quashing the return for trial; prohibition of trial on grounds of delay refused.

Orders

  • Order of certiorari quashing the return for trial by the first-named respondent.
  • No order prohibiting the prosecution or trial on grounds of delay or prejudice.