O'C(P) v DPP [2000] 3 IR 87 [1] [1]; (2000) IESC 58 [2] is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision where the court examined the issues of "delay" and the right to a fair trial. The Court stated that under Article 38.1 of the Constitution, provides that no one shall be tried for a crime "save in due course of law," and stated that anyone accused with an offence has a right to a trial that is performed with reasonable expedition. [3] The complainant's delay in informing the authorities of the alleged sexual abuse was found to be justified by the Court given the circumstances of the alleged offence. [4] The court found that the applicant's ability to defend himself had been substantially affected by the delay, creating a real possibility of an unfair trial. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the complainant's appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.
O'C (P) v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Supreme Court of Ireland |
Full case name | O'C (P) v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 |
Decided | 6 July 2000 |
Citation | O'C (P) v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | The High Court |
Appealed to | The Supreme Court |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Keane C.J., Denham J., Murray J., Hardiman J., Geoghegan J. |
Case opinions | |
The public interest in ensuring that every person received a fair trial took precedence over the public interest in the prosecution and punishment of crime. The delay in making the original complaint would not be grounds for prohibiting the prosecution. The applicant had established specific prejudice as a result of the delay and the order of the High Court would be upheld. However, this was done as an exception to the general rule. It was held that the right of the State to proceed with prosecuting cases where there had been a long delay was subject to the right of the accused to receive a fair and speedy trial. However in this trial the case did not turn solely on the issue of delay but rather on the absence of evidence which the applicant could have relied on had there not been such a delay. The Court held that the applicant had established specific prejudice as a result of the delay in the case and order of the High Court would be affirmed. | |
Decision by | Keane C.J., Denham J., Murray J., Hardiman J., Geoghegan J. |
Keywords | |
Right to Fair Trial, Reasonable Expedition, Significant Delay, Indecent Assault, Sexual Abuse, Presumption of Innocence |
P.O'C was charged with five counts of indecent assault. [5] In a Dublin school between 1982 and 1983, P.O'C assaulted P.K. sexually. P.K. attended 30-minute Friday night music lessons with P.O.C., a music teacher. At age 7, P.K started taking violin lessons with P.O'C. When P.K. was 11 years old, the first offence happened. [1]
In 1982, P.O'C gave car enthusiast P.K. magazines and books on the subject which helped him befriend P.K. After P.K.'s lesson, P.O'C suggested a chat. P.O'C closed the doors and made P.K. kneel when the offence happened. P.K. did not tell his parents about this until 1995 as P.O'C told him to keep it a secret. Fourteen years after the abuse, P.K. informed the Gardaí. [6] On January 19, 1996, the Gardaí interviewed P.O.C who denied sexually abusing P.K.
He was brought to the Circuit Court after being charged with the offences. The Director of Public Prosecutions testified P.K.'s delay in reporting to Garda was caused by his emotional and psychological response to the sexual abuse. Due to the DPP's delay in providing evidence, the trial was postponed, and a new date of October 16, 1997 was scheduled. [1]
In the new trial, K.W.'s statement illustrated P.K's 1990 complaints. P.O'C's lawyers opposed new evidence. The jury was discharged and a new trial was rescheduled. In P.O'C's affidavit, to determine when teachers obtained keys to the tutorial room, his lawyers searched for witnesses and supporting evidence. The school's director could not recall such classroom details, he was unable to remember any evidence to support P.O'C.
P.O.C. was permitted to submit a judicial review application on January 23, 1998. His request for orders, including a prohibition order, was heard by Mrs. Justice McGuinness on October 30, November 26, and December 21, 1998. [1]
P.O.C. asserted that his right to a fair trial was affected as a result of the length of time between the offence and the trial. He also claimed that he was the victim of prejudice and discrimination. The delay, according to P.O'C's lawyers, made it difficult to interview witnesses and gather evidence to disprove the allegations against him. His lawyers argued that the Complainant's whole account of the events would be invalid if P.K.'s statement of closing the doors was untrue. However, P.K's lawyers argued that the DPP did not delay pursuing or charging P.O'C with the offences and that if there was a delay, P.O'C was responsible. P.O'C failed to show that the delay prejudiced him. As there are no time restrictions for prosecuting these offences, the amount of time between the offence and the trial is insufficient to consider the trial to be unfair. [2]
P.K could not proceed against P.O'C because the trial would be unfair, the High Court's Mrs. Justice McGuinness ruled on March 4, 1999. P.K.'s delay was excused by McGuinness J. A trial at this point, in her opinion, would be unfair.
On April 15, 1999, P.K. filed an appeal against the High Court's decision. On May 18, 2000, the Supreme Court heard his appeal. [2]
The Supreme Court (Keane C.J., Denham, Murray, Hardiman, and Geoghegan JJ) ruled on July 6, 2000.
Each person is entitled to be tried with reasonable expedition under Article 38.1 of the Constitution. [7] When the prosecution does not postpone a trial, the Complainant's delay in filing a complaint may be excusable. In circumstances of child sexual abuse by a parent or step-parent, Keane J. stated that the courts cannot apply the presumption of innocence fully. However, Murray J said that the presumption of innocence must always be protected. Keane J explained his approach by noting that a court should not be forced to restrain a trial because a large period of time had passed even though the complaint was only delayed due to an adult who had dominion over the child when they were mistreated. [1]
There wouldn't be a justification to stop a trial if it was found out that the reason for the delay in submitting a complaint was the nature of the crime itself, and an accused person's own behaviour. [8]
The Court must determine if the Applicant's right to defend himself was so tampered with that an unfair trial was likely. Fair trials are guaranteed under the Constitution. [7] Since P.O'C was P.K.'s teacher and the crime was reportedly committed at school, the dominon reference seen in other situations where the criminal is the child's parent or the crime took place at home does not apply. Despite a valid relationship where the accused exerted power, dominion over the child is not easily drawn in this situation. [1]
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in its decision. P.O'C argued the delay in time should be inexcusable. He also claimed that P.K's account of him locking the doors before committing the crime is crucial in terms of evidence. If he could prove that this was untrue then the credibility of allegations made by P.K. would fail. P.K. retaliated that the responsibility was with P.O'C to show that he was subject to an unfair trial. However, he failed to show this in his affidavit and only relied on hearsay evidence of a letter from the former director explaining his difficulty of remembering details. The responsibility of an accused to point to evidence is not a heavy burden: one is required to do so on a balance of probabilities. The Court agreed that there is a burden of P.O'C on a balance of probabilities, to show that his right to a fair trial would be interfered with because of P.K making a delayed complaint.
The Court held that P.O'C cannot depend on prejudice that accused persons of sexual abuse faces in order to halt his trial due to the nature of this offence and the psychological evidence submitted. If he is to claim that there is a specific prejudice then he needs to do so in detail. In this case P.O'C had relevant assertions in respect of the prejudice he faced. His solicitor indicated there was difficulty in raising a defence which might help P.O'C. Therefore, the Court held that P.O'C sufficiently indicated what defence he would have raised had there been enough evidence open to him. A public interest in entitling every person to a fair trial overbears the public interest to prosecute someone for an offence.
The Supreme Court was satisfied with the findings of the High Court judge, any risk of an unfair trial cannot be overcome by rulings and directions to the jury during the course of the trial itself. There remains an unfairness to P.O'C when the evidence is unavailable and the allegations cannot be properly analysed by a jury. There is a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution did not take any steps to counter-argue and establish whether locking the room could still be proven.
The Court observed that the prosecution should have taken precautions to avoid a situation in which there is an undisputed assertion. P.O'C had proven prejudice caused by the delay, and the High Court's decision was upheld. This, however, was done in defiance of the norm. According to Mr. Justice Murray, the right of the accused to an expeditious trial was a condition of the State's ability to pursue charges after a significant delay. [7] But in this case, the absence of evidence that P.O'C may have relied on if there hadn't been a delay was more important than the issue of delay itself. Therefore the High Court's order was upheld. [1]
Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone, was a British politician, barrister and writer. He became a Labour Party Member of Parliament for Leicester in the 1970 general election as a last-minute candidate, succeeding his father. He was an MP until 1997, and then elevated to the House of Lords. Never a frontbencher, Janner was particularly known for his work on Select Committees; he chaired the Select Committee on Employment for a time. He was associated with a number of Jewish organisations including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, of which he was chairman from 1978 to 1984, and was later prominent in the field of education about the Holocaust.
The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis was a New Zealand childcare worker who was wrongfully convicted of child sexual abuse. He was at the centre of one of the country's most enduring judicial controversies, after being found guilty in June 1993 in the High Court on 16 counts of sexual offences involving children in his care at the Christchurch Civic Creche and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. He maintained his innocence until his death 26 years later and was supported by many New Zealanders in his attempts to overturn his convictions, although others believed he was guilty. Concerns about the reliability of the convictions centred on far-fetched stories told by many of the children and the interview techniques used to obtain their testimony.
A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.
The District Court is the lowest court in the Irish court system and the main court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. It has responsibility for hearing minor criminal matters, small civil claims, liquor licensing, and certain family law applications. It is also responsible for indicting the accused and sending them forward for trial at the Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court.
Margaret Mary Cunneen SC is an Australian barrister, prosecutor and commissioner of a government inquiry.
Nora Wall is a former Irish sister of the Sisters of Mercy who was wrongfully convicted of rape in June 1999, and served four days of a life sentence in July 1999, before her conviction was quashed. She was officially declared the victim of a miscarriage of justice in December 2005. The wrongful conviction was based on false allegations by two women in their 20s, Regina Walsh and Patricia Phelan. Walsh had a psychiatric history and Phelan had a history of making false allegations of rape prior to the event. Phelan subsequently admitted to having lied.
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is the National Prosecuting Authority in the Republic of Kenya as established by the Constitution of Kenya, which de-linked it from the Office of the Attorney General and established it as an independent office. The office is empowered with the authority to exercise the State's powers of prosecution with regard to criminal proceedings.
After a sexual assault or rape, victims are often subjected to scrutiny and, in some cases, mistreatment. Victims undergo medical examinations and are interviewed by police. If there is a criminal trial, victims suffer a loss of privacy, and their credibility may be challenged. Victims may also become the target of slut-shaming, abuse, social stigmatization, sexual slurs and cyberbullying. These factors, contributing to a rape culture, are among some of the reasons that may contribute up to 80% of all rapes going unreported in the U.S, according to a 2016 study done by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In Blood v DPP [2005] IESC 8, the Irish Supreme Court confirmed that a right to an expeditious trial is implied in the right to a fair trial under Irish law. The decision of McGuinness J further suggested that "blameworthy prosecution delay was insufficient without some evidence of prejudice to the accused, whether in the form of a real risk of an unfair trial or stress and anxiety arising from the delay". The applicant in the case was successful in their appeal.
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Bailey[2012] IESC 16, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held they did not have the jurisdiction to order the surrender of a non-Irish citizen for the commission of a crime committed in Ireland. Ian Bailey was accused of murdering a French citizen in Ireland. The French judicial authorities requested the extradition of Bailey from Ireland to France so to question him about the crime. However, the issue in this case was that Bailey is not a French citizen, rather his nationality is British. This case dealt with an unprecedented question of law as usually the person requested by the issuing state is a national of that state. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where Bailey was a British national yet the French authorities requested for his extradition. Nevertheless, the Court decided that Bailey could not be surrendered because the French had not actually charged him with a crime.
P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions[2002] IESC 46 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court barred the further prosecution of a man for the alleged sexual abuse of his sister due to the nature of the offences and on the grounds of the pre-charge delay in criminal prosecution. A "inordinate" delay of seven years before the man was charged, coupled with the nature of the offences being described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten" led to the decision of the court.
PM v Director of Public Prosecutions[2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise.
McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.
D.C. v DPP[2005] 4 IR 281, [2006] ILRM 348; [2005] IESC 77 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that the standard to be met for prohibiting a trial is "where there is a real or serious risk of an unfair trial".
Brian Rattigan v DPP [2008] IESC 34; [2008] 4 IR 639 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a criminal trial would be prohibited where prosecutorial delay or adverse pre-trial publicity created a substantial risk of unfairness to the accused.
Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not required to provide information justifying a decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court, unless it can be shown the decision was made mala fides. This decision further specified that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) neither specified the nature of a fair trial nor identified trial-by-jury as a right.