Zoe Developments Ltd. v. D.P.P. [1999] IEHC 118 (3rd March, 1999)

Zoe Developments Ltd. v. D.P.P. [1999] IEHC 118 (3rd March, 1999)

There is not a real or serious risk of an unfair trial arising from the pre-trial publicity or the disclosure of previous convictions, given the nature of the prosecution, the evidence to be adduced, and the ability of the trial judge to give appropriate directions. There was no deliberate prosecutorial misconduct by the Second named Respondent. However, to ensure fairness, the trial should be adjourned to allow the effects of publicity to fade.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 118
Parties
Applicant: Zoe Developments Limited; First Named Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Named Respondent: National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health (Health and Safety Authority)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application for prohibition of trial refused; partial relief granted by way of adjournment.
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Publicity, Fair Trial Rights, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Abuse of Process, Adjournment of Criminal Trials
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Pre Trial Publicity Fair Trial Rights Prosecutorial Misconduct Abuse of Process Adjournment of Criminal Trials

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoe Developments Limited

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Named Respondent

National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health (Health and Safety Authority)

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-trial publicity, including disclosure of previous convictions, creates a real or serious risk of an unfair trial
  2. 2 Whether prosecutorial or quasi-prosecutorial misconduct justifies prohibition of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

There is not a real or serious risk of an unfair trial arising from the pre-trial publicity or the disclosure of previous convictions, given the nature of the prosecution, the evidence to be adduced, and the ability of the trial judge to give appropriate directions. There was no deliberate prosecutorial misconduct by the Second named Respondent. However, to ensure fairness, the trial should be adjourned to allow the effects of publicity to fade.

Court Disposition

Application for prohibition of trial refused; partial relief granted by way of adjournment.

Orders

  • Refusal of orders prohibiting the criminal trial and restraining publication by the Second named Respondent.
  • Order restraining the First named Respondent from listing the trial before the Michaelmas sittings of 1999.