User:Holloco/sandbox

Jump to navigationJump to search H. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006 3 IR 575; [2007] 1 ILRM 401; [2006] IESC 55 ] was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court set down a landmark judgment regarding prosecutorial delay in cases involving child sexual abuse.

Contents

 * 1Background
 * 2Holding of the Supreme Court
 * 2.1Cross-border merger and transfer of security
 * 2.2Appointment of a receiver and exercise of rights under the security
 * 2.3Conclusion
 * 3References
 * 4External Links

Background[edit]
The facts of the original case concern the appellant, H., who faced 48 separate charges of indecent assault, contrary to S. 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. At the time, he was being tried in the Criminal Circuit Court for sexual offences alleged to have been committed by him against four people, when he was a teacher in the 60's. The victims who were minors at that time, were schoolboys under his care at a school in Dublin. In 2002, the appellant was allowed to apply for an injuctive review by two orders made by the High Court, restraining the prosecution of the charges against him due to the lengthy passage of time between the commission of the offences and the prosecution of these offences against him.

In its findings, the High Court noted that no formal complaints were made by the victims up until May 1999. The first complaint was made by J.M in May, 1999 but a formal complaint was worded on 10th of March, 2000. In the case of S.F the complaint was made on 23rd March, 2000; For E.B the complaint was made on 21st February, 2001, and in L.W.'s case the complaint was on 30th August, 2001. The Court also recorded that the victims swore affidavits detailing the alleged abuse and that although only three of them had been cross examined. Each victim had given a reason why they had not come forward with their case at an earlier time.By way of relief granted to him by the High Court, the accused sought an order injuncting his trial. But was unsuccessful in the High Court.

Refusing the order, the Court applied the three- staged test set out by Keane J. in the P.C v D.P.P. case and found the delay to be as a result of the appellants actions. Although issues arose regarding culpable prosecutorial delay, the Court was satisfied that the accused was in a position of "authority and dominion" over the victims and that the delay was a clear product of the alleged abuse.

The last point of contention was whether the delay amounted in prejudice such that the court should restrain the prosecution of the appellant. In this matter, the Court having considered the evidence, dismissed this claim and found that there was no "real or serious risk that a fair trial cannot be had in the circumstances".

Holding of the Supreme Court[edit]
The Supreme Court case concerned the appeal by H., of the High Courts decision not to restrain his trial. In his appeal, he stated that the trial judge had erred in fact and in law. The Supreme Court in its decision, explored the precedent that has been developed over the years regarding the prohibition of trials of child sexual abuse due to a "significant delay between the alleged actions, the complaint and the prosecution". Furthermore, the Court set out the appropriate test to be applied when dealing with this type of cases. Judgment of the Court delivered by Murray C.J.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.