PM v Director of Public Prosecutions

Last updated

PM v The Director of Public Prosecutions
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Citation(s)[2006] 3 IR 172, [2006] IESC 22, [2006] 2 ILRM 361
Case opinions
When there is a prosecutorial delay, a balancing exercise must be carried out, but if there is serious blameworthy prosecutorial delay that is one factor in itself and of itself that must be considered.
Court membership
Judges sitting Kearns J, Geoghegan J, Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J
Keywords

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 (the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. [1] This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial (such as the right to "prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration" [2] ) were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. [3] 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. [4]

Contents

Background

In September 2001, PM was charged with three counts of gross indecency which were allegedly committed against his nephew, GL. The offences took place between August 1982 and December 1985 (between when GL was 13 years old and when he was 16 years old). [2] During the time the offences took place, GL lived in a house next door to PM's family house. GL initially made a complaint to a Garda Síochána (police) who then investigated his case. Subsequently, PM was arrested and questioned by the police in July 1999. After a decision was made to prosecute PM, he was again arrested and charged in December 2000. PM sought to prohibit his trial on the grounds of the delay in time. [2] He cited the long time lapse between the time the alleged offences were committed and the initial complaint being made. [2] Moreover, there was a further delay between when the initial complaint was made and when he was charged. [2] However, on the basis of expert evidence from a psychologist, the High Court found that the delay in making the complaint was "referable to the accused’s own actions." [2] The lower court judge was not, therefore, satisfied with PM's claim that his ability to defend himself had been "impaired" and that the trial should not go ahead. [2]

The DPP appealed to the Supreme Court and invited the court to determine whether "in a case of blameworthy prosecutorial delay, there is nonetheless an obligation on an applicant to establish in addition some degree of prejudice referable to the breach of his right to an expeditious trial which would entitle him to a prohibition order." [2] PM (as respondent) cross-appealed on the basis that the psychologist's opinion was not credible as she did not refer to any of GL's psychiatrists. Also, the very reason that she is a psychologist and not a qualified psychiatrist offers a substantial ground to overlook that particular evidence. [3]

Holding of the Supreme Court

Written judgments were provided by Kearns J and Geoghegan J, with whom the other judges agreed.

The Court had to decide what to do in situations where there is a long time gap between when the alleged offences were committed and when the victim first addressed a complaint. In addition, the court had to consider situations where there is also a blameworthy delay after that time by the prosecution. In such a circumstance, the question for the court was whether the trial be prevented on the basis of a blameworthy delay or should the accused show that his right to an expeditious trial was interfered with in such a drastic way that he is entitled to the relief he seeks? [2]

The right to trial with reasonable expediency is a right conferred upon an individual by the Constitution. [5] [1] Furthermore, different principles may apply in relation to blameworthy delay on the part of the prosecution. [2] If there is a delay in cases such as those involving sexual offences, it is important that the trial does not proceed any further because otherwise an accused's constitutional right given in Article 38.1 will be in breach. [2] In this case, when there was already a delay between the time when the crime happened and the initial complaint, any additional delays by the prosecution should not be tolerated. [2] [3] The Supreme Court determined that the balancing test identified by Keane CJ in PM v Malone is appropriate for this case too. [2] This test provides that an accused must show that he faced some type of difficulties as a result of the prosecutorial delay so as to outweigh the community interest to prosecute those guilty of criminal offences. [2] For example, an accused can show that he faced additional stress and anxiety which arose from the delay in his prosecution or oppressive pre-trial incarceration. [2] Geoghegan J explained that this need not be measured quantitatively. This is because it is obvious that a person who is suspected of sexual offences and who is innocent will have a certain degree of stress and anxiety. [2] It is important to note that characterising a person as innocent is only for the purposes of the presumption of innocence. Nevertheless, the courts should look at the blameworthy delay and the nature of the alleged crimes. If the length of the blameworthy delay is short then a mere fact that there was a delay will not suffice. So when balancing out the two aspects identified above, courts must have regard to the length of such blameworthy delays. [2]

The Supreme Court held that there had been an unjustified delay of approximately 34 months between the initial evidence provided to the police and the subsequent charges brought against PM. It was the decision of the Supreme Court that there had been a blameworthy delay in this element of the case. [2]

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. As Geoghegan J noted: "I entirely agree that a balancing exercise must be carried out but if there is serious blameworthy prosecutorial delay that is one factor in itself and of itself that must be put into the melting pot when the balancing exercise is being considered" [2] [6]

See also

PM v Director of Public Prosecutions

Related Research Articles

Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. A variation in civil law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the office or official charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several criminal jurisdictions around the world. The title is used mainly in jurisdictions that are or have been members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Prosecutor Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

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.

Crown prosecutors are the public prosecutors in the legal system of Australia. In Western Australia, they are referred to as State prosecutors.

High Court of Singapore Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. It consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain barristers.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

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.

Director of Public Prosecutions of Kenya

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 New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) is an independent prosecuting service and government agency within the portfolio of the Attorney General of New South Wales. Of all prosecuting services in Australia, the ODPP has the largest caseload, staff, and budget.

<i>Blood v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>Dunne v Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v Bailey</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>P.M. v District Judge Miriam Malone and the Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>B S v The Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.”

<i>McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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.

<i>Gerald J.P. Stephens v Paul Flynn Ltd</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Gerald J.P. Stephens v. Paul Flynn Ltd.[2008] IESC 4; [2008] 4 IR 31 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, absent special circumstances, a party's failure to deliver a statement of claim within a period of twenty months is inexcusable and will justify dismissal of the litigation.

<i>D.C. v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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".

<i>Brian Rattigan v DPP</i> Irish Supreme Court case

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. 1 2 O'Malley, Thomas (2016). Sentencing Law and Practice (3rd ed.). Roundhall.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 "PM -v- DPP [2006] IESC 22 (05 April 2006)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
  3. 1 2 3 "Long delay meant no real risk of an unfair trial". The Irish Times. Retrieved 7 April 2020.
  4. ↑ Micheal O'Higgins, 'Reviewing Prosecution Duties, 9th Annual' National Prosecutor's Conference (24 May 2008) <https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/PAPER_-_Micheal_OHiggins_BL.pdf> accessed 7 April 2020
  5. ↑ In re Singer [1963] 97 ILTR 130
  6. ↑ O'Malley, Thomas (2013). Sexual Offences (2nd ed.). Round Hall.
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.