P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions

P. M. v. Malone
P. M. v. Malone
	Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided	7th June 2002
Citation(s)	[2002] IESC 46
Case history
Appealed from	High Court of Ireland
Case opinions
	An inordinate delay and unusual circumstances led the Court to decide to stop the further prosecution of alleged sexual abuse.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Keane C.J., McGuinness, Hardiman
Keywords
	Constitution of Ireland ; Delay ; Sexual abuse ;

Last updated April 12, 2022

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 (P.M., the appellant) 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.^[1]^[2] 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.^[3]

Background

The appellant was nine years old when the "sexual experimentation" began with his sister, who was aged seven at the time.^[3] This carried on until shortly after the appellant reached the age of adult responsibility. In 1991, the appellant's mother expressed concern that her youngest daughter (J), then aged three, might have been sexually abused by the appellant. A social worker and psychologist reported their findings of these accusations to the Garda Síochána (the police) in January 1992. The appellant's sister (the complainant) was reluctant to make a complaint until April 1998, but decided to do so eventually out of concern for her younger sister (J). The complainant "made it clear that the only reason she made a complaint in 1992, and again in 1998, was because of her concern that the [appellant] might have been abusing her younger sister."^[3] The appellant was not charged until 25 May 1999.^[3]

The case was brought to the High Court in 2002, where the granting of an order preventing further prosecution of the appellant was refused.^[3] During the High Court hearing the DPP decided not to proceed with charges that occurred before the appellant was fourteen years old, as Irish law at the time did not recognise that a male under that age was capable of sexual intercourse.^[3] The DPP proceeded with all other charges. The High Court judge noted that

The fact that a young person commits a crime and delay occurs does not of itself per se confer immunity from prosecution. If the delay does not occur through any fault of the State and is explicable and reasonable from the point of view of the alleged victim and if the accused's ability to defend himself is not so impaired that [there] would be a real and serious risk of an unfair trial, then the trial should go ahead. In this case I find no reason why the trial should be prohibited.^[3]

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Holding of the Supreme Court

Keane CJ delivered the only written judgment for the Supreme Court (with which the other judges agreed). The court stated that a period of "inordinate delay"^[3] existed in the seven-year period from when the Garda Síochána were aware of the allegations in 1992 until 25 May 1999 when the man was charged.^[3]^[1] The nature of the offences were described as "a form of sexual experimentation between two children under the age of ten and continued for a relatively short time after the applicant had reached the stage at which, in the eyes of the law, his actions attracted the same degree of criminal responsibility as adults."^[3] It was also noted that the alleged activities did not cause the appellant's sister to suffer significant long-term psychological damage, according to a psychologists' report.

Mr Justice Keane also noted the "bewildering contradiction"^[3] between the statement of the appellant, in which it was stated that sexual intercourse continued with his sister until she was nineteen years of age, and the statement of the appellant's sister, in which it was stated that the alleged activity ceased when she was twelve years old. Emphasising the importance of a speedy trial,^[4] the court concluded:

I am satisfied that, in this case, the nature of the offences with which the [appellant] is now charged coupled with the inordinate and wholly unjustifiable delay in bringing them to trial renders this a case in which the constitutional right of the applicant to a reasonably expeditious trial outweighs any conceivable public interest there might be in the prosecution of the alleged offences.^[3]

The court allowed the appeal and substituted the High Court's order for an order prohibiting the DPP from proceeding with the prosecution.

External links

P.M. v. District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions

Related Research Articles

A publication ban is a court order which prohibits the public or media from disseminating certain details of an otherwise public judicial proceeding. In Canada, publication bans are most commonly issued when the safety or reputation of a victim or witness may be hindered by having their identity openly broadcast in the press. They are also commonly issued when the crime involves minors or is sexual in nature.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behaviour. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim.

Adrian Hardiman was an Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2000 to 2016.

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.

The Constitution itself anchors the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Kenya. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is the National Prosecuting Authority in Kenya. The Constitution mandates it to prosecute all criminal cases in the country.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the principal public agency for conducting criminal prosecutions in the Republic of Ireland. It is led by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Eleanor Poppy Miranda de Freitas was an English woman who committed suicide three days before the commencement of her trial for perverting the course of justice for allegedly making a false accusation of rape. Her death prompted a debate over whether prosecuting people accused of making a false accusation of rape could deter rape victims from reporting the crime, as well as whether it was appropriate to prosecute vulnerable individuals.

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.

Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2002] 2 IR 305; [2002] IESC 27; [2002] 2 ILRM 241, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that fair procedure imposes a duty on the prosecution to seek out and preserve all evidence that has a bearing or a potential bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence.

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.

DPP v McLoughlin, [2009] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case, which confirmed that when objecting to the granting of bail where alleged witness intimidation is raised, the judge in the application should explicitly address the likelihood, extent, and impact of intimidation. This case specifically raised the issue of hearsay in considering potential witness intimidation and in the context of a bail decision. The decision of Denham J, goes on to state in regards to hearsay that: "The relevance and weight of such evidence is a matter to be determined by the trial judge and that a judge should be careful on the weight he or she places on such evidence". The case also had implications for bail applications because the Supreme Court found that a high case load for the High Court had implications on bail decisions.

Attorney General v Oldridge[2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.

B S v The Director of Public Prosecutions, [2017] IESCDET 134; was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the determination of article 34.5.3° of the Constitution when the Court can grant an allowance for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The ruling declared that the Supreme Court “is no longer a Court for the correction of error but rather a Court which has the principal constitutional task of determining issues of general importance.”

Braddish v DPP[2001] 3 IR 127 was an Irish Supreme Court decision that established principles in relation to gathering of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that "the Gardaí are under a duty to seek out and preserve all evidence bearing on the guilt and innocence of an accused." Daniel Braddish, the applicant, sought a prohibitory injunction against his approaching prosecution for robbery. Video evidence of the alleged crime had been in the possession of the Gardaí but was no longer available. The effort to have the prosecution overturned was refused in the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court was satisfied that the Applicant was entitled to the relief sought and accordingly made an order to quash the prosecution.

Comcast Int. Holdings v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors and Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister for Public Enterprise & ors [2012] IESC 50 is an Irish Supreme Court case which originated from the controversial decision of Michael Lowry, then Minister for Public Enterprise, to grant the second state mobile phone license to ESAT Digiphone. It has been described as "an absolutely unique case without any precedent in the ninety year history of the state."

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.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Pat Hegarty is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court confirmed that officers/key employees of undertakings involved in anti-competitive practices in Ireland may be prosecuted and convicted for their involvement, regardless of whether the undertaking itself has been prosecuted.

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.

References

1 2 "'Inordinate' delay bars sexual abuse prosecution". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
↑ Binchy, William (2007). Dickson (ed.). The Supreme Court of Ireland in Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts. Oxford University Press.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "M. (P.) v. Malone [2002] IESC 46 (07 June 2002)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
↑ Wallace, Stuart (2011). "Tackling Jarndyce and Jarndyce: delay, McFarlane v. Ireland and the European Court of Human Rights". Irish Criminal Law Journal. 21 (2): 30 – via Westlaw.ie.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[:0-1] 1 2 "'Inordinate' delay bars sexual abuse prosecution". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 December 2019.

[2] Binchy, William (2007). Dickson (ed.). The Supreme Court of Ireland in Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts. Oxford University Press.

[:1-3] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "M. (P.) v. Malone [2002] IESC 46 (07 June 2002)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 20 December 2019.

[4] Wallace, Stuart (2011). "Tackling Jarndyce and Jarndyce: delay, McFarlane v. Ireland and the European Court of Human Rights". Irish Criminal Law Journal. 21 (2): 30 – via Westlaw.ie.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]