Supreme Court halts prosecution due to gross delay and minor offence severity under public interest discretion.

THE SUPREME COURT

Appeal No. 405/2004

Murray C.J.

Denham J.

Hardiman J.

BETWEEN

VERONICA NOONAN

(AKA VERONICA HOBAN)

[APPLICANT / APPELLANT]

-V-

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

[RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT]

JUDGMENT delivered on the 27th day of July 2007 by Murray C.J.

In this matter I agree with the judgment of Denham J. who recites the history, facts and circumstances of this case. I wish to add

some brief observations.

The particular facts of this case require to be considered in order to determine whether the Court, in the exercise of its discretion,

should in the special circumstances of the case prohibit the prosecution continuing.

The discretion to be exercised by the Court is analogous to that exercised by this Court in Dawson –v- Hamill (No. 2) 1991 1 I.R. 293,

although it concerned a minor offence before the District Court, where Finlay C.J., speaking for the Court, refused to remit a criminal

prosecution for retrial or continuance before the District Court after an order of certiorari by way of judicial review had been granted

in respect of the initial conviction. The High Court having made such an order had remitted the matter for retrial before the District

Court. In allowing the appeal and reversing that order Finlay C.J. stated “The main grounds on which this part of the appeal is brought

are that the remittal was unfair and onerous to the plaintiff by reason of the delay in proceeding with the case in a proper manner;

that it is a long time since the happening of the event and, on the particular facts, the matter falls to be dealt with too long after the

alleged occurrence.” These and other factors were taken into account by the Court in that instance and Finlay C.J. in taking into

account “…all these considerations and … the interests of justice” was satisfied that the Court, in the exercise of its discretion,

should set aside the order of the High Court for a retrial or a continuance of the prosecution before the District Court.

There is of course a public interest in seeing that prosecutions are brought to trial and in this context the gravity of the offence is a

relevant consideration. It is a question of proportionality. The offences in this instance, having regard to the particular facts, are far

from the higher end of the scale in the calendar of offences. That is an important consideration in conjunction with all the other

factors in this case especially the gross and extraordinary delay in a case of this particular nature.

Having regard to all the factors arising from the history and gross delay in this case, as outlined in the judgments of Denham J. and

Hardiman J. I am satisfied that in the special circumstances of this case that the Court should exercise its discretion and grant the

relief sought by the appellant.