The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Veronica Noonan, also known as Veronica Hoban, and ruled that the prosecution against her should not proceed. The appeal concerned her application to prohibit a criminal trial on 16 alleged fraud charges, which the High Court had refused.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 27 July 2007, said the alleged offences took place between January 1990 and May 1992, when Noonan was a bookkeeper at Cabra Credit Union. She had indicated she would plead not guilty. The Supreme Court’s decision concerned the judicial review application over delay; it did not determine the criminal charges.
A complaint was made to An Garda Síochána in September 1992. Noonan was arrested and detained for questioning in February 1995, charged in December 1997 and returned for trial to Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in July 2002. She sought judicial review later that year. The High Court refused relief in July 2004, finding that although some delay was inordinate, Noonan had not shown that it impaired her defence or made a fair trial impossible.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s findings on the periods it had examined separately. It found no blameworthy prosecutorial delay before charge and agreed that neither the prosecution nor Noonan was responsible for the lengthy District Court process. It described the District Court delay as systemic and a matter of grave concern, saying it was inappropriate to adjourn matters for many months absent exceptional circumstances.
The court also considered the death of May Walters, who had been listed as a prosecution witness. It agreed that her death, by itself, did not establish prejudice sufficient to prohibit the trial. But the court said the cumulative circumstances had to be considered: the alleged offences dated back about 17 years, the process from complaint to return for trial took about ten years, the District Court delays were systemic, and a witness had died. It described the alleged fraud as relatively simple.
Considering the overall circumstances in its supervisory judicial review role, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion in Noonan’s favour. It concluded that proceeding with the prosecution would be unjust and oppressive, and allowed the appeal.