PM -v- DPP [2006] IESC 22 (05 April 2006)

PM -v- DPP [2006] IESC 22 (05 April 2006)

Blameworthy prosecutorial delay alone is not sufficient to prohibit a criminal trial; the applicant must also demonstrate that such delay has interfered with one or more interests protected by the right to an expeditious trial, such as causing significant anxiety, impairing the defence, or resulting in oppressive pre-trial incarceration. The balancing exercise must weigh the accused's rights against the public interest in prosecution, and in this case, the applicant's increased anxiety due to delay justified prohibition of the trial.

Citation
[2006] IESC 22
Parties
Applicant: PM; Respondent/appellant: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Right to Expeditious Trial, Sexual Offences, Prejudice to Fair Trial, Balancing Exercise Between Accused's Rights and Public Interest
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prosecutorial Delay Right to Expeditious Trial Sexual Offences Prejudice to Fair Trial Balancing Exercise Between Accused's Rights and Public Interest

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

PM

Applicant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether blameworthy prosecutorial delay alone is sufficient to prohibit a criminal trial or whether the accused must also demonstrate interference with interests protected by the right to an expeditious trial
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in attributing the complainant's delay in making a complaint to the actions of the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Blameworthy prosecutorial delay alone is not sufficient to prohibit a criminal trial; the applicant must also demonstrate that such delay has interfered with one or more interests protected by the right to an expeditious trial, such as causing significant anxiety, impairing the defence, or resulting in oppressive pre-trial incarceration. The balancing exercise must weigh the accused's rights against the public interest in prosecution, and in this case, the applicant's increased anxiety due to delay justified prohibition of the trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Trial prohibited due to significant blameworthy prosecutorial delay and resulting anxiety to the applicant
  • Findings of the High Court judge regarding the complainant's delay in making a complaint upheld