P.L. -v- DPP & anor [2004] IESC 110 (20 December 2004)

P.L. -v- DPP & anor [2004] IESC 110 (20 December 2004)

The Supreme Court held that the impossibility of producing the desk behind which the alleged abuse occurred, and the inability to produce secondary evidence of its structure, created a real and serious risk of an unfair trial. The absence of this 'island of fact' constituted specific prejudice to the defence, justifying prohibition of the prosecution. The case was so old, and the loss of evidence so complete, that the issue was beyond the reach of fair litigation.

Citation
[2004] IESC 110
Parties
Applicant/appellant: P. L.; Respondent: Her Honour Judge Buttimer; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Prohibit Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of prohibition granted
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Evidentiary Prejudice, Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Evidentiary Prejudice +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. L.

Applicant/appellant

Her Honour Judge Buttimer

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal to Prohibit Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lapse of time between alleged offences and prosecution creates a real risk of an unfair trial
  2. 2 Whether the absence of physical evidence (the desk) constitutes specific prejudice to the defence
  3. 3 Whether a criminal trial based solely on assertion and denial, without 'islands of fact', is beyond the reach of fair litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the impossibility of producing the desk behind which the alleged abuse occurred, and the inability to produce secondary evidence of its structure, created a real and serious risk of an unfair trial. The absence of this 'island of fact' constituted specific prejudice to the defence, justifying prohibition of the prosecution. The case was so old, and the loss of evidence so complete, that the issue was beyond the reach of fair litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of prohibition granted

Orders

  • Order prohibiting the Director of Public Prosecutions from taking any further steps in the prosecution of the applicant
  • Order restraining the first-named respondent from proceeding with the trial