M.P. v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Kearns P. |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 40 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 30 January 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 40
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
CHILDREN'S ACT 1908 S12(1)
RSC O.84 r21
RSC O.84 r21(1)
RSC O.84 r21(2)
RSC O.84 r21(3)
RSC O.84 r21(3)(A)
RSC O.84 r21(3)(B)
RSC O.84 r21(3)(B)(I)
RSC O.84 r21(3)(B)(II)
RSC O.84 r21(5)
RSC O.84 r21(6)
RSC O.84 r21(7)
SHELL E & P IRL LTD v MCGRATH & ORS UNREP SUPREME 22.1.2013 2013 1 IR 247 2013/47/13408 2013 IESC 1
H (S) v DPP 2006 3 IR 575
M (P) v DPP 2006 IESC 22
MACFARLANE v DPP 2007 1 IR 134
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Practice and procedure
Leave - Time limits - Delay - Extension of time - Prosecution - Prohibition - Knowledge of accused - Whether accused having sufficient knowledge of intended charges to bring application for judicial review - Whether time limits for seeking judicial review mandatory - Whether application for leave brought out of time - Shell E & P Ireland Ltd v McGrath [2013] IESC 1, [2013] 1 IR 247 applied - SH v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 55, [2006] 3 IR 575; PM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 22, [2006] 3 IR 172 and McFarlane v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 11, [2007] 1 IR 134 considered - Rules of the Superior Courts 1985 (SI 15/1986), O 84, r 29 - Children Act 1908 - Application dismissed (2014/68JR - Kearns P - 30/1/2015) [2015] IEHC 40
P(M) v DPP
Facts: The applicant in this case sought an order to restrain the respondent from continuing to prosecute the applicant on Bills of Indictment. The respondent submitted that the applicant failed to comply with requirements of Order 84 Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and the application should therefore fail. The court had to determine whether the application for leave to apply for judicial review had been made in the appropriate time frame.
Held by Kearns P: The court was satisfied that the applicant had the requisite knowledge to advance an application pursuant to Order 84 rule 21 when he was served with the first Book of Evidence in relation to the first Bill of Indictment. The court therefore dismissed the application to restrain the respondent from continuing to prosecute the applicant on the first Bill of Indictment. The court was not persuaded to grant an extension of time in relation to the second Bill of Indictment and dismissed the application. The applicant”s failure to comply with Order 84 rule 21 disposed of the application. This meant the court did not have to consider questions of complainant delay, prosecutorial delay, prejudice to the applicant or the role of the trial judge.
JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered on 30th day of January, 2015
By notice of motion dated 12 th February 2014 the applicant seeks an order restraining the respondent from continuing to prosecute the applicant on Bills of Indictment 748/2012 and 885/2013 which is presently pending before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
The applicant has been charged with 70 counts relating to allegations of indecent assault contrary to common law and child cruelty contrary to section 12(1) of the Childrens' Act 1908 as amended. In relation to Bill 748/2012 the applicant was originally charged with 56 indecent assault offences on 24 th May 2012 on foot of complaints made by two of his sons. The offences are alleged to have occurred between 1973 and 1983 when the two sons were aged between 5 and 15 and 11 and 14 respectively. On 1 st November 2013 an indictment was lodged containing fourteen additional counts of child cruelty. In Bill 885/2013 the applicant is further charged with alleged indecent assaults on another son which are said to have commenced in December 1979 and ceased in March 1986.
The complainants moved to the UK in or around 1986 and are said to have made complaints to a UK police force in 2008. In May 2009 one of the complainants met with a Detective Garda Woods and statements were taken from the complainant and other family members. A further statement was made to Gardaí by another of the applicant's sons in December 2010 and the applicant was subsequently arrested and questioned on 29 thMarch 2011. Directions to prosecute in relation to the first two complainants issued from the Director of Public Prosecutions in April 2012. The applicant was charged on 24 th May 2012. The third complainant first made a formal complaint to Gardaí in October 2012. The applicant was arrested and questioned in relation to these fresh allegations on 13 th November 2012 and directions from the DPP issued in August 2013. The applicant was charged in relation to these offences on 13 th September 2013.
The Court has been furnished with the specific details of each of the complainants' allegations of indecent assault and child cruelty. It is not necessary for the purposes of this application to reiterate these allegations in any detail herein. In broad terms, it is alleged the applicant repeatedly sexually abused the three complainants over a lengthy period of time. It is further alleged that the complainants were subject to regular physical violence. The applicant refutes each allegation of sexual abuse as well as the depiction of the circumstances and atmosphere in the family home as advanced by the complainants.
The DPP intends on prosecuting the applicant on both Bills in one trial. A date has been set down for trial but a stay was granted on an ex parte application made on 3 rd February 2014.
Submissions have been made by counsel for both parties in relation to the well established principles of complainant delay, prosecutorial delay, prejudice caused to the applicant, and the role of a trial judge in safeguarding an accused person's constitutional rights. However, counsel for the respondent correctly submits that if there has been a failure on the part of the applicant to comply with the requirements of Order 84 rule 21 of the Rules of Superior Courts then the application for relief must fail.
Order 84 rule 21, as amended by SI 691 of 2011 provides as follows -
2 21.(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made within three months from the date when grounds for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.M. v Relevant Circuit Court Judge
...so to do. This has been made clear in a number of decisions which I briefly mention. 16 In M.P. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] IEHC 40, Kearns P. construed the time limits narrowly. The application was approximately two weeks out of time, but Kearns P. was not persuaded to use h......
-
BPSG Ltd v The Courts Service
...and which had already been communicated to Registry Trust in October 2010. That argument does not avail the applicant. 26 In M.P. v. DPP [2015] IEHC 40 Kearns P. stressed the mandatory nature of the time limitations in judicial review. Judicial review is a form of process which is convenien......
-
M.R (Albania) v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...defence in other proceedings out of time. The cases on prohibition of criminal trials are specific to that contest: see e.g. M.P. v. DPP [2015] IEHC 40 (Unreported, High Court, Kearns P., 30th January, 2015), although even there, there is quite some latitude allowed: see C.C. v. Ireland [......
-
Duffy v Road Safety Authority and Others
...to me that that determination disposes of the matter and it is accordingly unnecessary to consider the substantive merits - see MP v. DPP [2015] IEHC 40. 44 21. In any event, it seems to me that the applicant is simply wrong in his interpretation of the Regulations. It cannot have been the ......