M.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions & ors (Approved)

1.������ The within papers were filed on 4 June 2020 and leave was afforded to the applicant on 8 June 2020 to seek to prohibit the further prosecuting of bill DU874/2019 at present before the Circuit Criminal Court, together with an order staying any further prosecution under that bill, together with damages and an extension of time if necessary.� The issue as to damages was not pursued either in the statement of grounds or in submissions.

2.������ The applicant makes an assertion of wholly exceptional circumstances claiming it unfair and unjust to put him on trial on the basis that the allegations are between 28 and 52 years old; there are missing documents and missing witnesses; the applicant is currently 87 years of age and the trial date is fixed for 8 June 2021 when the applicant will be 88 years; and, he is in poor health.

3.������ In addition, the applicant claims that there was delay on the part of the prosecution, violating the applicant�s right to a fair trial with reasonable expedition without good explanation.

4.������ The applicant suggests that prosecution of historic indecency allegations in accordance with the Constitution does not apply to three named individuals based on statements to the Smith Inquiry in 2010, contact with a support group, and, in respect of one individual, a successful civil action.

5.������ The applicant also relies on a maximum sentence of two years for the offences, save for three complainants (two of whom might have a maximum sentence of five years and one ten years if the applicant was convicted) and the combined effect of the foregoing is such that it would be unfair and oppressive to prosecute.