M. (H.) v. D.P.P.

The applicant seeks an injunction by way of judicial review, restraining the respondent from further proceeding with the offences comprised in proceedings entitled "The Director of Public Prosecutions v. H.M., Bill No. 1263/01" at present before the Circuit Criminal Court and a stay on the proceedings pending the determination of the application. Leave for judicial review was granted on the 18 th February, 2002 by McKechnie J. on the basis of para. (d) of the statement dated the 15 th February, 2002 and the affidavit of the applicant.

The Notice of Motion filed on the 27 th February, 2002, seeks to injunct all of the eighteen charges. The reality of applicant's submissions, given the admissions made by the applicant in relation to two incidents, is that the application is to prohibit the remainder, that is in relation to fourteen of the incidents, from further prosecution.

The complainant first contacted the Garda� on the 15 th February, 1999 and made a formal statement on the 24 th April, 1999. The applicant was interviewed in relation to the offences on the 3 rd November, 1999 on a voluntary basis and in the presence of his solicitor.

Reference was made to P.C. v. D.P.P. [1999] 2 IR 25 at 65 et seq. and to JO'C v. D.P.P. [2000] 3 I.R. 478, PO'C v. D.P.P. [2000] 3 I.R. 87 and J.L. v. D.P.P. [2000] 3 I.R. 122 and, more recently, in D.W. v. D.P.P. (Unreported, Supreme Court 31 st October, 2003).

The applicant contended that the lapse of time prior to the making of the complaint was of such a duration as to put the court on enquiry whether the applicant's right to trial with due expedition had been violated and the circumstances the onus is on the respondent to satisfy the court that the delay is explicable. In the event that the respondent does not so satisfy the court then the applicant contends that, notwithstanding such explanation, his right to a fair trial has been irretrievably compromised by reason of prejudice which has arisen as a result of the delay.