Director of Public Prosecutions v C.C. [2019] IESC 94_1 (19 December 2019)

Director of Public Prosecutions v C.C. [2019] IESC 94_1 (19 December 2019)

The Supreme Court held that neither the trial judge nor the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for determining whether the absence of a witness due to delay rendered the trial unfair. The correct test is whether the missing evidence would have provided a real possibility of an obviously useful line of defence. The trial judge must assess, in light of the prosecution case and any available evidence as to the likely content of the missing evidence, whether this standard is met. The Court found that the lower courts erred in their approach and that the proper standard was not applied.

Citation
[2019] IESC 94_1
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/appellant: C. Ce.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further consideration applying the correct test.
Legal Topics
Historic Sexual Offences, Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Absence of Witnesses, Burden of Proof in Delayed Cases
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Historic Sexual Offences Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Absence of Witnesses Burden of Proof in Delayed Cases

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

C. Ce.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper approach to determining whether a long-delayed criminal trial is unfair due to the absence of potentially material witnesses?
  2. 2 What is the burden on an accused to demonstrate that the absence of a witness due to delay has resulted in a real risk of an unfair trial?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that neither the trial judge nor the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for determining whether the absence of a witness due to delay rendered the trial unfair. The correct test is whether the missing evidence would have provided a real possibility of an obviously useful line of defence. The trial judge must assess, in light of the prosecution case and any available evidence as to the likely content of the missing evidence, whether this standard is met. The Court found that the lower courts erred in their approach and that the proper standard was not applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for further consideration applying the correct test.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The matter is remitted for further consideration by the appropriate court, applying the correct legal standard as set out in this judgment.