Claffey v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Neutral Citation | 1993 WJSC-HC 164 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | 1990/17646P,[1990 No. 17646P] |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
1993 WJSC-HC 164
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
O'CALLAGHAN V O hUADHAIGH 1977 IR 42
O'CONNOR V DPP 1987 ILRM 723
DAWSON V HAMMILL 1991 IR 213
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Trial
Fair procedures - Charge - Prosecution - Restraint - Grounds - Defence disclosed - Lapse of time - First trial aborted - Nature of defence disclosed - New trial directed - (1990/17646 P - Murphy J. - 27/11/92) - [1993] 3 I.R. 582
|Claffey v. Director of Public Prosecutions|
DELAY
Trial
Commencement - Jury - Discharge - New trial - Defence - Prejudice - Proof - Absence - (1990/17646 P - Murphy J. - 27/11/92)
|Claffey v. Director of Public Prosecutions|
Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphydelivered the 27th day of November 1992.
In these proceedings the Plaintiff claims a declaration that the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute for a second time the Plaintiff on charges of burglary and malicious damage is ultra vires, void and of no effect and contrary to natural and constitutional justice and is in breach of the Plaintiff's constitutional right to a speedy trial and to fair procedures.
On the 14th day of August 1988 a burglary occurred at Murphy's Cash and Carry Store at Mill Park Road, Enniscorthy, County Wexford. The Gardai were called to the scene in theearly hours of the morning. It appears that three persons engaged in the crime attempted to escape through a hole in the roof and that one of them fell to the ground and was injured in the fall. The Gardai arrested the injured man in the premises where the burglary occurred. The other two escaped. It appears that the injured man gave his name and address as "Anthony Claffey of 16 New Street, Dublin". The injured man was brought to the hospital in Wexford from which he subsequently discharged himself.
It was not until the 25th of October 1989 that the Plaintiff in these proceedings, Mr. Anthony Claffey, was arrested by the Gardai in Dublin. He was brought before Kilmainham District Court. Subsequently he was remanded in November 1989 in the District Court in Wexford. He did not attend in the District Court in Wexford on the 21st of January 1990 as he was required to do and a Warrant was issued by the District Justice for his arrest. Before the Warrant was executed the Solicitor then acting on behalf of the Plaintiff contacted the authorities and explained that his client's failure to attend the Court was due to an error. It appears that that explanation was accepted because on the 28th of February 1990 the Plaintiff was admitted to bail.
The Book of Evidence was delivered on the 28th of March 1990 and the Plaintiff was sent forward for trial on the 8th of May 1990 to the Wexford Circuit Court. Later that month an application was made on behalf of the Plaintiff for the transfer of the trial to the Dublin Central Criminal Court. Again it appears that the Plaintiff failed to appear at the Dublin Central Criminal Court on the 25th of May 1990 as required to do and a Warrant was issued by the Court forhis arrest. He was brought before the Court on the 13th of June 1990 and once again admitted to bail. His trial was fixed for the 4th of October 1990 and took place on that date. The Jury was discharged on the application of the Plaintiff and a re-trial was fixed for the 17th of December 1990.
On the 14th of December 1990 these proceedings were instituted and on the 17th of December 1990 a Motion was served seeking an interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendant from prosecuting the further trial of the Plaintiff. That Motion was heard and the Order granted on the 10th of June 1991.
It is appropriate to add that the Statement of Claim was delivered on the 22nd of July 1991 and that the Defence was delivered on the 25th of November of that year.
The Jury was discharged by the trial Judge in the trial which took place on the 4th of October 1990 because one of the State witnesses, Detective Garda Anthony Fagan, gave evidence to the effect that the man arrested at the scene of the crime was wearing a glove which had been referred to earlier in the evidence. Neither that evidence nor evidence which other Gardai were invited to give linking the accused to the man found at the scene of the crime had been set out in the Book of Evidence. The argument made on behalf of the Plaintiff/Accused that this evidence might prejudice a fair trial was upheld by the trial Judge who discharged the Jury.
Obviously any danger that the Plaintiff/Accused would be taken by surprise in the re-trial in the same way as the original trial could not occur as he has now been put on notice of the case to be made by the State. This additionalevidence should be the subject matter of appropriate notices to introduce further evidence if that has not already been done.
It is not the danger of surprise that concerns the Plaintiff at this stage. On his behalf it is contended that a re-trial would be unjust and contrary to his constitutional rights for the reason that the Jury was discharged at a stage when it had become clear that the Plaintiff's line of Defence was to challenge the evidence of identification which, the Plaintiff says, consisted according to the Book of Evidence of the testimony to be given by Detective Garda Fagan alone. What is said is that the State now knowing that that is the line of the Plaintiff's Defence could and intend on a re-trial to produce further and perhaps stronger evidence of identification and that this is unjust to an accused. It is said that the prosecution would be taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial