B. (R.) v. D.P.P. & Anor [2004] IEHC 424 (21 December 2004)

B. (R.) v. D.P.P. & Anor [2004] IEHC 424 (21 December 2004)

The court found that the delays in reporting by the complainants were explicable and excusable as being due to the traumatic psychological consequences of the applicant's conduct. No specific prejudice to the applicant's defence was established. The applicant failed to demonstrate a real and serious risk of an unfair trial, and thus was not entitled to an injunction restraining the prosecution or an order of certiorari.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 424
Parties
Applicant: R. B.; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: District Justice William Hamill
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Certiorari
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Delay in Criminal Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Child Abuse, Presumption of Innocence, Prosecutorial Delay
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Delay in Criminal Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Child Abuse Presumption of Innocence +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. B.

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

District Justice William Hamill

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Certiorari

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecution violates the applicant's right to a fair and expeditious trial
  2. 2 Whether the delay is attributable to the conduct of the accused or is otherwise explicable
  3. 3 Whether specific prejudice to the defence has been established

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delays in reporting by the complainants were explicable and excusable as being due to the traumatic psychological consequences of the applicant's conduct. No specific prejudice to the applicant's defence was established. The applicant failed to demonstrate a real and serious risk of an unfair trial, and thus was not entitled to an injunction restraining the prosecution or an order of certiorari.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for injunction restraining prosecution refused
  • Application for order of certiorari quashing return for trial refused