The High Court has refused Rita Murphy’s application to stop her prosecution on 15 alleged larceny offences involving her mother’s Survivor’s Pension, finding that a fair trial remained possible.
The prosecution is pending in Dublin Circuit Court under bill number DUDP0567/2019. Murphy sought judicial review and an order prohibiting further prosecution. The High Court judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 16 March 2022, did not determine whether Murphy committed the alleged offences.
The judgment says the Department of Social Protection received an anonymous complaint on 31 October 2013 about a possible fraudulent pension claim. Murphy’s mother died on 30 October 2015. In a Garda interview in May 2016, Murphy said she collected the pension for her mother and passed it to her, unaware that her mother was receiving another pension. Those matters appear in the judgment as allegations and Murphy’s account; they are not findings that the offences occurred.
Murphy argued that delay and her mother’s death had left her unable to call her mother to support her explanation, creating an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. The court identified a period of about six to nine months’ delay in the Department’s handling of the complaint before it was sent to gardaí. It found no further identifiable prosecutorial delay on the material before it, and no evidence of deliberate delay.
The court accepted that Murphy could no longer call her mother, but said it was not possible to know what her mother would have said. It also noted that Murphy could present other evidence, such as evidence that she travelled weekly to her mother’s home to deliver the pension money. The trial judge could give directions, including directing an acquittal or withdrawing charges from the jury if that were necessary to ensure fairness.
Justice O’Regan concluded that the claimed prejudice was not shown at this stage to be manifest, unavoidable and serious enough to create a real risk of an unfair trial. The court’s conclusion was that a fair trial was possible, so it refused prohibition. The judgment leaves the criminal case for the Circuit Court; it makes no determination of guilt.
The court did not make an immediate costs order. It set out a process for written submissions if either party seeks costs, and said there would otherwise be no order as to costs.