Keely v. Moriarty [1997] IEHC 156 (7th October, 1997)

Keely v. Moriarty [1997] IEHC 156 (7th October, 1997)

The delay in prosecution was not unreasonable given the complexity of the investigation and necessary legal proceedings; the Applicant's defence was not prejudiced by any act or omission of the Respondent, nor by the absence of Mr. Harskin, whose evidence could be admitted by other means and whose testimony was not essential to a fair trial.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 156
Parties
Applicant: Peter Keely; Second Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Relief refused
Legal Topics
Delay in Criminal Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Reasonable Expedition, Prejudice Due to Unavailable Witness

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Keely

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether delay in prosecution was unreasonable and prejudicial to the Applicant's right to a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the unavailability of a material witness (Mr. Maurice Harskin) prejudiced the Applicant's defence

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in prosecution was not unreasonable given the complexity of the investigation and necessary legal proceedings; the Applicant's defence was not prejudiced by any act or omission of the Respondent, nor by the absence of Mr. Harskin, whose evidence could be admitted by other means and whose testimony was not essential to a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Relief refused

Orders

  • Application for Order of Prohibition permanently restraining prosecution denied