The High Court has refused an application to stop a dangerous-driving-causing-death prosecution, despite finding blameworthy delay of just over six years between the alleged offence and the charge.
The applicant sought prohibition of the trial and a declaration that the delay breached his constitutional right to a fair trial. Mr Justice Twomey ruled on 18 March 2016 that the prejudice he described did not outweigh the public interest in prosecuting the serious charge. The application was refused; the court did not determine guilt or innocence.
The judgment says the applicant was arrested at the scene of a fatal road crash at Cromwellstown, Co Kildare, on 1 March 2009 and made admissions to gardaí. He left Ireland for the UK later that month using a false identity, according to the judgment. He was surrendered to Ireland in June 2009 under a European Arrest Warrant relating to drug offences and handling stolen property. The dangerous-driving charge was not included because the matter was still under investigation.
After the applicant’s 2009 convictions and prison sentences for those other offences, a dangerous-driving summons was withdrawn. He was arrested in prison in March 2010 under a warrant, questioned and released without charge. The judgment records that nothing significant happened in the case until November 2014, when the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the High Court to seek UK consent to prosecute an offence outside the original warrant. The applicant was charged on 13 March 2015.
The DPP attributed the delay to uncertainty about the legal route for obtaining that consent. Justice Twomey held that a solution could have been pursued earlier by asking the High Court to interpret the relevant law purposively. He described the delay as blameworthy in the legal sense, while stressing that this was not personal criticism of DPP staff.
The applicant did not claim that the delay had impaired his ability to defend himself or created a risk of an unfair trial. He argued instead that the late charge harmed his rehabilitation, reduced or eliminated the prospect of remission and concurrent sentences, and led to his transfer from the prison Training Unit, interrupting his third-level studies. The judgment notes that he had earned a higher diploma while in custody.
The court said those matters could be considered by a sentencing judge if the applicant were convicted. Weighing the claimed prejudice against the seriousness of a charge involving a death, alleged admissions described in the book of evidence, the applicant’s departure from Ireland and the high threshold for stopping a trial, the judge concluded that the prosecution should proceed.