McGealy v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice O'Neill |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] IEHC 472 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007/10I6 JR |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 28 November 2007 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2007] IEHC 472
THE HIGH COURT
S (D) v JUDGES OF THE CORK CIRCUIT & DPP UNREP O'NEILL 16.10.2006 2006/51/10810 2006 IEHC 303
The Applicant, Michael McGealy, seeks an Order for Prohibition restraining the Respondent from pursuing the prosecution entitled"The People at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Michael McGealy", Bill Number CC066A/04 on the basis that this will be the third time the case has been prosecuted.
The first time he was convicted on all but two counts but this was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The second time the jury disagreed.
A third trial has now been fixed for next Monday.
The Applicant seeks to rely on the case ofDS -v- The DPP (Unreported, High Court, O'Neill J., 16th October, 2006). The Applicant stresses various passages in that Judgment and says that the inherent dangers of repetitive trials referred to in that Judgment apply here. I disagree with the Applicant in such regard. The essence of the DS case is a balancing of two competing rights; the right of the Applicant not to be subject to trial which is not in due course of law and the rights of the public to prosecute offences.
The core principle is that the public have to have a fair opportunity to prosecute a criminal case to its final conclusion. Mishaps can occur which may result in a re-trial, for example, if a jury is discharged. Where the Director of Public Prosecutions in a case which has no mishap and which goes all the way, on two occasions to a jury, the balance tilts in favour of the Applicant who may face risks. Here, unlikeDS, the Applicant faces similar offences in relation to two other complainants. As of this point in time the public's right to prosecute has not been fully vindicated yet. Cases similar to DS are rare where there are two jury disagreements after two satisfactory jury trials.
I would extend the Applicant's time for bringing the within proceedings.
The Court refuses the relief sought by the Applicant. The Court considers it proper in the circumstances of this case to recommend payment by the State of the costs of the Applicant including Senior Counsel under the Attorney General's Scheme. No Order as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McC (P) v DPP
...OF THE CORK CIRCUIT & DPP 2008 4 IR 379 2009 1 ILRM 16 2008/57/11808 2008 IESC 37 MCGEALY v DPP UNREP O'NEILL 28.11.2007 2007/36/7424 2007 IEHC 472 CONSTITUTION ART 38 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6 DPP v BYRNE 1994 2 IR 236 1994 2 ILRM 91 FLOWERS v THE QUE......
-
Byrne v Judges of the District Circuit Court
...fourthly, possibly, the extent to which the case now to be met has changed from that which was considered in previous trials. 11 In Michael McGealy v DPP [2007] IEHC 472 Ó Néill J considered whether a third trial should be prohibited in circumstances where the applicant had, on the first t......
-
McC (P) v DPP
...236 S (D) v JUDGES OF THE CORK CIRCUIT & DPP UNREP O'NEILL 16.10.2006 2006/51/10810 2006 IEHC 303 MCGEALY v DPP UNREP O'NEILL 28.11.2007 2007 IEHC 472 EX TEMPORE CRIMINAL LAW Delay Sexual offences - Right to fair trial - Reasonable expedition - Prosecutorial delay - Prejudice - Nature of pr......
-
PM v DPP
...2006 IEHC 244 R v GALBRAITH 1981 2 AER 1060 1981 1 WLR 1039 1981 73 CAR 124 MCGEALY v DPP UNREP O'NEILL 28.11.2007 2007/36/7424 2007 IEHC 472 S (D) v JUDGES OF THE CORK CIRCUIT & DPP 2007 2 IR 298 2006/51/10810 2006 IEHC 303 S (D) v JUDGES OF THE CORK CIRCUIT & DPP 2008 4 IR 379 2009 1 ILRM......