O’C. v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr.Justice Morris |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | 1998 WJSC-HC 11190 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 26 November 1998 |
1998 WJSC-HC 11190
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS (IRL) ACT 1863 S26
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S10
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS (IRL) ACT 1863 S42
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S28
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS (IRL) ACT 1863 S30
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS & DEATHS (IRL) ACT 1863 FORM B
CORONERS ACT 1962 S50(2)
CORONERS ACT 1962 (PARTICULARS OF REGISTRATION OF DEATH) REGS 1962 SI 25/1962
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S9
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S38
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S13
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S14
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S29
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S20
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S20(2)
BIRTHS DEATHS & MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT 1972 S6
BIRTHS & DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT (IRL) ACT 1880 S34
CORONERS ACT 1962 PART III
CORONERS ACT 1962 S17
CORONERS ACT 1962 S18
CORONERS ACT 1962 S19
CORONERS ACT 1962 S50
CORONERS ACT 1962 S50(1)
VITAL STATISTICS & BIRTHS DEATHS & MARRIAGES REGISTRATION ACT 1952
REGISTRATION (IRL) ACTS 1863 – 1994
CW SHIPPING CO LTD V LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS 1989 ILRM 416
REGULATIONS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF DUTIES OF REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS, DEATHS & MARRIAGES (IRL) 1914 REG 111
REGULATIONS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF DUTIES OF REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS, DEATHS & MARRIAGES (IRL) 1914 REG 113
Citations:
B V DPP 1997 2 ILRM 118
C V DPP & BRENNAN UNREP SUPREME 28.5.1998
D V DPP 1994 2 IR 465
Z V DPP 1994 2 IR 476
Synopsis:
Judicial Review
Application to quash registration of death by clerical employee of hospital where death occurred; whether employee an "informant" under s.10, Births and Deaths Registration Act (Ireland), 1880; whether employee an "occupier" of the hospital under s.38, 1880 Act; whether entry made in register constituted evidence of death; whether failure of City Coroner to furnish certificate in form prescribed under s.50(2), Coroners Act, 1962 vitiates registration Held: Employee a qualified informant; employee not an occupier; registration constitutes evidence of death; no requirement for certificate as Coroner did not make inquiry (High Court: Laffoy J. 21/03/1997) [1997] 1 IR 377
O'Connell v. An tArd Chlaraitheoir
Synopsis
Criminal Law
Judicial review; sexual offence complaint; delay in prosecution of charges; right to trial with due expedition; delay in the making of the complaint; whether delay created defence difficulties over and above what would be normal difficulties to be expected in meeting charges such as those profferred against the applicant; whether delay will result in the applicant being deprived of a fair trial Held: Relief granted; trial of applicant would not constitute an observance of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
O'Connor v D.P.P. - High Court: Morris P. - 25/11/1998
Applicant applied by way of Judicial Review for an order of prohibition to prohibit the trial of a person when that persons right to a fair trial was denied due to delay in bringing the proceedings. The delay in this case amounted to a period of 23 years. The applicant claimed that he was prejudiced in his defence of the proceedings which involved allegations of sexual assault. Morris J held that the approach which should be adopted by the courts when asked to prohibit the trial of a person with such an offence was dealt with by Denham J. in the case of B.v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1997] 2 ILRM 118, and by in C.v. Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Brennan (judgment 28 May 1998). Morris J. relied on the formula adduced by Lynch J. in the latter case. Morris J. asked if added difficulties (above those evident in a normal defence) were caused to the applicant in his defence by reason of such delay. If this was the case Morris J. then, assuming that what the complainant says is correct, asked were the difficulties caused by the applicant himself, and if so he cannot be allowed to rely on them when seeking the relief sought. It was held that the applicant was responsible for the difficulties and should take responsibility for the delay caused on bringing the prosecution.
Applicant’s right to be tried in due course of law and his right to have his trial with reasonable expedition were also considered. In relying of the above mentioned cases the Morris J. stated that the test is one of a real risk of an unfair trial and if same is established then the matter should be determined in favour of the accused. That the affect of the delay on the applicant’s case, however it may have been caused, will result in the applicant being deprived of a fair trial. The court heard how the applicant is man of delicate health, limited in his capacity of defend himself, deprived of what might well have been one of his best witnesses (his deceased wife) and that a trial in these circumstances would not constitute an observance of the applicant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
Mr.Justice Morris delivered on the 26th day of November,1998.
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to an Order made on the 28th February 1998 (Barr J.) whereby the Applicant was given leave to apply by way of Judicial Review for an Order of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondent from proceeding with the prosecution of the charges pending against him in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court or alternatively an injunction restraining the Respondent from proceeding with the prosecution.
The grounds upon which this Order was made were:-
(1) That the Applicant has been derived of his right to a trial with due expedition by virtue of the delay in bringing this prosecution.
(2) The Applicant has been prejudiced in his defence of these proceedings by virtue of delay in bringing the proceedings.
(3) The Applicant has been prejudiced in his defence of these proceedings by virtue of the lack of specificity in the charges alleged.
Counsel for the applicant made it clear that he does not seek to rely on the lack of specificity as a ground in itself. He does however identify this as an element which has led to the overall prejudice which is being suffered by the Applicant in the defence of the action.
Counsel for the Applicant has also indicated to the Court that he makes no complaint about the lapse of time between the matter being made known to the Garda Authorities and the date on which the Applicant was charged with the offences.
The Applicant was charged on the 23rd September, 1997 with sixteen separate charges of indecent assault on Catherine O'Sullivan between 20th October 1974 and the 19th October 1978.
Accordingly it is alleged that these offences continued for a period of approximately four years and the lapse of time between the commission of the first offences and the date of charge is approximately 23 years and the lapse of time between the commission of the last of the series of offences and the date of charge is 19 years approximately.
The Book of Evidence was served on the Applicant on the 12th November 1997 and the Applicant was returned for trial to the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on the 4th February 1998.
The Complaint against the Applicant is contained in a statement made by Catherine O'Sullivan which now forms part of the Book of Evidence. She alleges that when she was five or six years of age her father, who is now a retired Sergeant of An Garda Siochana, moved from Blessington to Swords and he and four other Guards built a number of houses beside each other in Brackenstown Road, Swords. She says the Applicant was her next door neighbour and that her parents were very friendly with Garda O'Connor and his wife. She used to play with the O'Connor children. She says that when she was nine or ten years old, Garda O'Connor started to molest her. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial