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 refuses to prohibit second trial of applicant charged with sexual offences against two children (after the first trial resulted in the jury being discharged for other reasons) on the grounds that there was jurisdiction to direct the discontinuance of the proceedings by reason of delay, in particular alleged blameworthy prosecutorial delay and the unconstitutionality of legislation in relation to children giving evidence at trial, finding that: 1) the Circuit judge not have jurisdiction to stop the first prosecution on the grounds of delay alone; 2) it is not arguable to contend that the legislation should be read as prohibiting the admission of a video recording after the date on which the injured party turns 14; 3) constitutional issues require the applicant to submit to the criminal process and pursue any criminal appeal before being permitted to have proceedings challenging a duly enacted statutory provision; and 4) the application is out of time in any event.
Criminal law – prohibition of second trial – allegations of sexual offences against two children – whether Circuit Court judge had jurisdiction to direct the discontinuance of the proceedings by reason of delay, in particular alleged blameworthy prosecutorial delay – whether video recorded interviews with the complainants were admissible under s. 16(1)(b) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 – whether the EU Victims’ Directive 2012/29/EU has direct effect, given that Article 24 of the directive allows any injured party under the age of 18 to give evidence by means of an audio-visually recorded interview – whether section 16 ceases to apply when an injured party turns 14 – constitutionality of section 16 of the 1992 Act – Garnet Orange, Police Powers in Ireland (Bloomsbury Professional, Dublin and West Sussex, 2014) – s. 4(b) of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking)(Amendment) Act 2013 – Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution – constitutional issues should be reached last militates in favour of requiring the applicant to submit to the criminal process and pursue any criminal appeal before being permitted to have proceedings challenging a duly enacted statutory provision listed for hearing – exceptional nature of prohibition – application made out of time – application dismissed.
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