Rattigan -v- DPP [2008] IESC 34 (07 May 2008)

Rattigan -v- DPP [2008] IESC 34 (07 May 2008)

Despite culpable and unjustified prosecutorial delay and lurid pre-trial publicity, neither created a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial in light of the strong independent forensic evidence, the passage of time before trial (fade factor), and the availability of appropriate trial directions. The absence of certain witnesses and the failure to electronically record interviews did not impair the defence to the extent required to prohibit the trial.

Citation
[2008] IESC 34
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Brian Rattigan; Respondent/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Injunction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Delay, Pre Trial Publicity, Right to Fair Trial, Injunction to Prohibit Trial, Contempt of Court, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Prosecutorial Delay Pre Trial Publicity Right to Fair Trial Injunction to Prohibit Trial Contempt of Court Admissibility of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Rattigan

Appellant/applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecutorial delay warranted prohibition of trial
  2. 2 Whether prejudicial pre-trial publicity created a real risk of unfair trial
  3. 3 Whether failure to electronically record interviews justified prohibition of trial

Ratio Decidendi

Despite culpable and unjustified prosecutorial delay and lurid pre-trial publicity, neither created a real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial in light of the strong independent forensic evidence, the passage of time before trial (fade factor), and the availability of appropriate trial directions. The absence of certain witnesses and the failure to electronically record interviews did not impair the defence to the extent required to prohibit the trial.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Injunction prohibiting prosecution refused
  • Appeal dismissed