Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, by way of judicial review, refuses to prohibit criminal trial involving historic sexual abuse in which an indictment containing amended dates of alleged offences was delivered to the defence on the eve of the trial, on the grounds that the prosecution need not be stopped because of a mere inconsistency between the dates given by a complainant (assuming they were given in evidence) and the indictment, and that the appropriate venue for complaints regarding fairness is the trial.
Judicial review – application to restrain criminal prosecution – indictment containing amended dates delivered to defence on eve of trial – whether the evidence of the complainants as set out in the statements in the book of evidence was inadmissible, because it referred to different dates to those in the indictment – whether an indictment can differ from a complainant’s statement – historic sex abuse – whether the prosecution must be stopped because of a mere inconsistency between the dates given by a complainant (assuming they were given in evidence) and the indictment – whether there are arguable grounds to contend that the DPP should have been compelled to deliver an amended indictment – s. 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924 – Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (the victims directive) – appropriate venue for complaints regarding fairness is the trial – leave to seek prohibition refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now