J.S. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2016] IEHC 61 (05 February 2016)

J.S. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor [2016] IEHC 61 (05 February 2016)

The deleted video evidence was not vital to the core issue of the case and its absence did not create a real or unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. The applicant's admissions and other available evidence sufficed for a fair trial. No legitimate expectation arose preventing prosecution. The threshold for prohibition due to lost evidence was not met.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 61
Parties
Applicant: J. S.; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: Judge Aingeal Ní Chondúin
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Prohibition and Certiorari
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Lost Evidence, Fair Trial, Sexual Assault, Legitimate Expectation, Prosecutorial Discretion
Criminal Law Judicial Review Lost Evidence Fair Trial Sexual Assault Legitimate Expectation Prosecutorial Discretion

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. S.

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

Judge Aingeal Ní Chondúin

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Prohibition and Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether deletion of video evidence created a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution should be prohibited due to lost evidence
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation not to be prosecuted

Ratio Decidendi

The deleted video evidence was not vital to the core issue of the case and its absence did not create a real or unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. The applicant's admissions and other available evidence sufficed for a fair trial. No legitimate expectation arose preventing prosecution. The threshold for prohibition due to lost evidence was not met.

Court Disposition

Application refused