S. (T.) v. D.P.P & Ors [2004] IEHC 50 (26 February 2004)

S. (T.) v. D.P.P & Ors [2004] IEHC 50 (26 February 2004)

The court held that while there was a significant delay between the alleged offences and prosecution, the delay was reasonably explained by the complainants' psychological trauma, fear, and social stigma. The applicant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice or that a fair trial was impossible. The right to a trial with due expedition was not violated in the circumstances, and the application for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction was refused.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 50
Parties
Applicant: T. S.; First Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Named Respondent: His Honour Judge Harvey Kenny; Third Named Respondent: District Judge Albert O'Dea
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Delay in Prosecution, Right to Fair Trial, Sexual Offences, Abuse of Process, Certiorari, Prohibition, Injunction, Prejudice Due to Delay
Criminal Law Judicial Review Constitutional Law Delay in Prosecution Right to Fair Trial Sexual Offences Abuse of Process Certiorari +3 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T. S.

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Named Respondent

His Honour Judge Harvey Kenny

Second Named Respondent

District Judge Albert O'Dea

Third Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay between the alleged commission of offences and prosecution deprived the applicant of his right to a trial with due expedition
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has been prejudiced by the delay such that a fair trial is impossible
  3. 3 Whether the delay is attributable to the complainants and if so, whether it is reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while there was a significant delay between the alleged offences and prosecution, the delay was reasonably explained by the complainants' psychological trauma, fear, and social stigma. The applicant failed to demonstrate specific prejudice or that a fair trial was impossible. The right to a trial with due expedition was not violated in the circumstances, and the application for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for certiorari quashing the return for trial order is refused.
  • Application for prohibition and injunction restraining prosecution is refused.