O'Connor v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Lardner
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 1433
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1987

1986 WJSC-HC 1433

THE HIGH COURT

1985 9972

O'CONNOR v. DPP

DERMOT O'CONNOR

PLAINTIFF

AND

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

DEFENDANT

Citations:

HEALY, STATE V O'DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325, 110 ILTR 9, 112 ILTR 37

LARCENY ACT 1916 S31(1)

O'CALLAGHAN, STATE V O HUADHAIGH 1977 IR 42

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Trial

Fairness - Renewed trial - Additional evidence - Receipt of stolen goods - Indictable offence - Preliminary examination - Absence of evidence in relation to many of the 140 items of jewellery involved in alleged offences - On 25/1/85 accused asked Director of Public Prosecutions to restrict prosecution to matters supported by evidence - No reply - Accused returned for trial in Circuit Court - Offences committed between 1980 and 1982 - On 6/2/85 trial judge discharged jury on ground that inclusion in indictment of a large number of items of jewellery, without evidence of theft, was prejudicial to the fair trial of the accused in relation to the remaining items of jewellery - Financial resources of accused exhausted by cost of defence at abortive trial - Fresh indictment preferred against accused in April, 1985, in relation to 100 items of jewellery - Notice dated 20/7/85 served by Director on accused - Notice stated that two witnesses would give additional evidence at trial of accused - Notice served at beginning of November in contemplation of renewal of trial on 4/12/85 - Accused, as plaintiff, instituted civil action against Director and claimed orders protecting his personal rights under the Constitution - Plaintiff applied for interlocutory injunction restraining further prosecution on indictment pending determination of civil action - Held, in granting the relief sought, that the plaintiff had established a prima facie infringement of his constitutional right to the application of fair procedures - (1985/9972 P - Lardner J. - 21/3/86) - [1987] ILRM 723

|O'Connor v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

INJUNCTION

Interlocutory

Criminal offence - Trial - Restraint on further prosecution of accused on indictment - Fair procedures - Civil action instituted by accused against Director of Public Prosecutions - Held, in restraining further prosecution on indictment, that the plaintiff had established a prima facie infringement of his constitutional right to the application of fair procedures - ~See~ Criminal Law, trial - (1985/9972 P - Lardner J. - 21/3/86) - [1987] ILRM 723

|O'Connor v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Criminal offence - Trial - Restraint on further prosecution of accused on indictment - Civil action instituted by accused against Director of Public Prosecutions - Interlocutory injunction sought by plaintiff - Held, in restraining further prosecution of plaintiff on indictment pending determination of civil action, that the plaintiff had established a prima facie infringement of his constitutional right to the application of fair procedures - ~See~ Criminal Law, trial - (1985/9972 P - Lardner J. - 21/3/86) - [1987] ILRM 723

|O'Connor v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Lardnerdelivered the 21st day of March 1986.

2 This is an application by the Plainriff Dermot O'Connor for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, from proceeding with a prosecution entitled the Director of Public Prosecutions .v. Dermot O'Connor on an indictment charging the Plaintiff with receiving a large number of (over 100) items of jewellery contrary to Section 31 (1) of the Larceny Act 1916. The application is made on the ground that fcr the D.P.P. to proceed with this prosecution would in the circumstances of this case involve an injustice to the Plaintiff and a breach of his constitutional right to have fair procedures applied at his trial. In making this application Counsel for the Plaintiff has relied on certain facts and matters which are not really in controversy.

3 The Plaintiff was originally charged vith the offences in question on 26th October 1983. The charges relate to dates between 21st September 1980 and 3rd April 1982. On the advice of Counsel the Plaintiff caused the principal witness in Book of Evidence Raymond Roche to be examined on deposition.It appears...