Redmond v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Kearns
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: 2002 WJSC-HC 6062
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2002 No. 229 J.R.]
• Date: 30 October 2002

2002 WJSC-HC 6062

THE HIGH COURT

No 229 JR/2002

REDMOND v. DPP & PRESIDENT & JUDGES OF DUBLIN CIRCUIT COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

GEORGE REDMOND

APPLICANT

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS AND THE PRESIDENT AND JUDGES OF THE DUBLIN CIRCUIT COURT

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

PUBLIC BODIES CORRUPT PRACTISES ACT 1889

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1916

DPP V HAUGH 2001 1 IR 162

BLANCHFIELD V HARTNETT & ORS 2002 2 ILRM 435

BUCKLEY V KIRBY & DPP 2000 3 IR 431 2001 2 ILRM 395

MCGOLDRICK V BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 497

ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTUREHOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORP 1948 1 KB 223

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39

RSC O.84

D V DPP 1994 2 IR 465

Z V DPP 1994 2 IR 476

ZOE DEVELOPMENTS, IN RE UNREP GEOGHEGAN 3.3.1999 1999/25/8085

DPP V HAUGH 2000 1 IR 184

JURIES ACT 1976 S15(3)

"EMPIRICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPACT OF PRE-TRIAL PUBLICITY" 2002 CLR 719

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Prohibition

Trial - Delay in bringing application - Allegations of corrupt practice in public office - Fair trial - Jury - Bias - Whether apprehension of jury bias reasonable - Whether unfair to accused to permit trial to proceed - Whether risk of unfair trial - Whether such risk avoidable - Whether risk of bias resolvable during jury selection - Whether risk of bias resolvable by appropriate directions from trial judge (2002/229JR - Kearns J - 30/10/02)

Redmond v DPP - [2002] 4 IR 133

Facts: the applicant was charged with corrupt practices in April 2001 and his trial was set for the 4th June 2002 in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Five weeks prior to the trial he was granted leave to apply for judicial review restraining the respondents from proceeding with the trial on the grounds that extensive adverse media coverage of the applicant's affairs in relation to the charges meant that it was not possible for him to be tried by an impartial and unbiased jury as they would be influenced by information and evidence which is prejudicial and which would not be admissible and that there was no possibility of such bias being overcome either by the challenging of jurors during jury selection or by the giving of appropriate directions to the jury. The respondents submitted that an analogy could be drawn between the alternative remedies of judicial review or appeal and judicial review or adjournment and that as it was open to the applicant to apply for an adjournment to provide the relief sought it was the more appropriate remedy.

Held by Kearns J in refusing the application that no analogy could be drawn between judicial review or appeal on the one hand and judicial review or adjournment on the other but that the prohibition application was defeated by the delay in bringing it. Moreover, the applicant had not discharged the onus of establishing a real risk of an unfair trial if the matter proceeded. It was wrong to impute naivety to jurors and the adverse publicity was not of such a degree as to deprive the trial judge at the outset of the option of inviting self-disqualification of potential jurors as a method of overcoming any risk of an unfair trial due to prejudicial publicity. To the extent that there may be some risk, it could be avoided by the giving of appropriate warnings and directions by the trial judge.

1 Mr. Justice Kearns delivered the 30th day of October, 2002.

2 On 3 ^rd April 2001 the applicant was charged with offences under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 and the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1906 and 1916. The four offences on which the applicant is charged allegedly occurred between 1985–1988, whilst he held the post of Assistant Dublin City and County Manager. They are alleged to relate to land transactions in which Dublin County Council was engaged during the aforesaid period. On the 9 ^th of November, 2001, the applicant was returned for trial in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. On 4 ^th February, 2002, her Honour Judge Elizabeth Dunne directed that the applicant's trial be fixed to commence on the 4 ^th of June, 2002, which said date was the first day of that particular law term. On 29 ^th April 2002, some five weeks prior to the trial date, the applicant applied for and obtained leave to bring the present application.

3 On that date, Murphy J. gave leave to the applicant to apply by way of judicial review for an order of prohibition and/or an injunction prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the trial of the applicant on the said charges, or from taking any further steps in relation to the prosecution of the applicant in respect of such charges, "until such time as the applicant can be assured of a fair trial".

4 The grounds upon which relief is sought are stated as follows:-

5 a "(a) by reason of the extensive adverse media coverage of the applicant's affairs and conduct and the intense public interest in the applicant over a period of more than three years, there is a widespread, if not universal, belief that the applicant has been guilty of wholesale corruption in respect of the performance of his duties and functions as the Assistant County Manager for Dublin County Council and it is not possible at this time for the applicant to be tried by an impartial and unbiased jury.

6 (b) as a result of media coverage of the work of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, including media accounts of evidence given to that Tribunal both by the applicant and by other witnesses, members of a jury assembled to try the applicant will be privy to and will be influenced by information and evidence which is prejudicial to the applicant and which would not be admissible if the first named respondent sought to adduce same in the course of the applicant's trial

7 (c) the nature and extent of the bias against the applicant is such that there is no possibility of it being overcome either by the challenging of jurors during the jury selection process or by the giving by the trial judge of appropriate directions to prospective jurors or to the jury empanelled to try the said charges."

8 Voluminous documentation was presented to the court in the course of the present application consisting of newspaper articles, transcripts of radio interviews and broadcasts, colour pieces, commentaries, photographs and cartoons, the cumulative effect of which, it is submitted on the applicant's behalf, is to undermine the credibility of the applicant and portray him as a corrupt person. On the application of the applicant's counsel, Mr. McEntee SC, the court requested that the media refrain from publishing the content of the material said to be prejudicial which was opened to the Court having regard to the nature of the application being made, a course which was observed by the media and which in turn I propose to follow in this judgment. Mr. McEntee highlighted a considerable number of newspaper articles. He invited the court to listen to recordings of an interview on the Joe Duffy programme on the 16 ^th of May 2000, and a commentary piece delivered by Brenda Power on RTE's 5-7 Live on the 12 ^th of May 2000, which was repeated on the 1 ^st of November 2000. In addition, Mr. McEntee placed heavy reliance upon the allegedly prejudicial nature of a book written by Mr. Paul Cullen, a journalist employed in the Irish Times, which was published in April, 2002, and to a chapter therein which focused on the applicant. He also relied on reports of a CAB raid on a solicitors office in Dublin at around the same time when a file was recovered which was said to be of relevance concerning inquiries in to Mr. Redmond. The court was also referred to extracts from radio broadcast transcripts contained in three black ring binders and to a spreadsheet detailing how, it was submitted, Mr. Redmond had been severely prejudiced by articles which either referred to the subject matter of the charges in question, exposed him to ridicule or contempt or suggested he was a bribe taker and liar.

9 Between April and October 2001, there was ongoing correspondence between the applicant's solicitor, Mr. Harris and the office of the DPP wherein Mr. Harris alleged that there had already been so much adverse publicity that his client's right to a fair trial had been prejudiced. Letters to this effect were sent on the 24 ^th of May 2001, the 18 ^th of June 2001 and the 24 ^th of July 2001.

10 On the 25 ^th of July 2001, the Director, having instituted proceedings against the Phoenix magazine in respect of one complaint, and having considered two other articles in the Sunday Business Post, wrote to Mr. Harris stating that he did not accept that the applicant could not receive a fair trial. Further letters were written to the director by Mr. Harris in August and October which evinced no response suggesting or indicating that the prosecution might be halted.

11 The court was informed that of 144 publications by various means complained of by the applicant, 113 pre-dated the bringing of charges in April 2001.

12 It is also a matter of record that other criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant's tax affairs were brought in the Circuit Court in April, 2000 which in turn were the subject matter of an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in December 2000. Mr. Cullen's book was extensively reviewed in various newspapers in the weeks that followed its publication in 2002. This period of publicity is suggested to have been very damaging to Mr. Redmond in that it, along with reports of the CAB raid, revived and restored in public perception much of the material which had been published about Mr. Redmond in preceding years.

13 Mr. McEntee invited the court to altogether prohibit any trial of Mr. Redmond ever taking place or, alternatively, to prohibit any trial until a fair trial could be assured.

14 However, before...