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.
Parties
Peter Keely
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions
Second Named Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether delay in prosecution was unreasonable and prejudicial to the Applicant's right to a fair trial
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment