The Supreme Court dismissed Brian Rattigan’s appeal against a High Court refusal to stop his prosecution for the murder of Declan Gavin. The Court considered both the original grounds for judicial review and later newspaper coverage submitted as additional evidence. It did not decide the criminal charge or the pending contempt proceedings against newspaper publishers.
Rattigan had argued that prosecutorial delay impaired his defence, including through the loss of witnesses, and that pre-trial publicity created a risk of an unfair trial. He also challenged the use of fingerprint evidence and the lack of electronic recording of interviews. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s rejection of those grounds. It said the unavailable witnesses had not provided an alibi, and the delay was not a causal reason for the later fingerprint evidence. It also noted that witness statements would not themselves be admitted as evidence and that recording equipment had not been commissioned for the relevant interviews.
The Court acknowledged the High Court’s criticism of culpable and unjustified delay by the prosecution authorities, particularly between the DPP’s receipt of the Garda file in March 2002 and the direction to prosecute in September 2003. It nevertheless concluded that the delay and the issues raised about witnesses did not make a fair trial unavoidably impossible.
The appeal also concerned coverage in the Sunday World, Sunday Tribune, Daily Mail and Irish Mail on Sunday. The articles were alleged to connect Rattigan with gangland killings and other criminal activity. The Supreme Court considered affidavits describing the later coverage, but stressed that contempt proceedings were separate and should be considered afresh by the High Court. Its decision on whether to stop the trial did not determine whether any publisher had committed contempt.
The Court said the vivid coverage created a possibility that some jurors might remember it or associate Rattigan with the case. But, taking account of the time likely to pass before trial, the trial judge’s directions and the seriousness and expected length of the trial, it did not consider an injunction appropriate or necessary. It also said the prosecution’s proposed blood fingerprint evidence could be considered when assessing trial fairness.
The Supreme Court criticised the DPP’s apparent lack of a proactive role in considering contempt proceedings over the publicity, while noting that the DPP was not obliged to act at an accused person’s request. It concluded that stopping the trial could not be used simply to punish the media, and dismissed the appeal.