The High Court has prohibited further prosecution of five road traffic charges after finding that additional delay by the prosecuting authority infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to a trial with reasonable expedition.
In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2009, Mr Justice Herbert ruled on a judicial review application concerning charge sheets for alleged driving with excess alcohol, driving without insurance, failing to provide evidence of insurance, driving without a driving licence and failing to produce a licence. The court’s order stopped those prosecutions; it did not determine the allegations themselves.
The applicant had been arrested and charged with a separate offence of driving while allegedly incapable of proper control on 18 September 2004. He appeared in the District Court five days later, but did not attend a subsequent remand hearing in November. A bench warrant was issued.
Police applied in March 2005 for five summonses relating to the other alleged offences. The summonses were issued in April but were not served. Garda evidence was that an attempt to serve them in May failed after occupants at the applicant’s last known address said he had moved to the United Kingdom. The court accepted there was good and sufficient reason at that point to believe he had left the State.
The applicant said he returned permanently in May 2005 and lived in Swords, but accepted he had not formally notified Gardaí of his return or new address. Garda records later noted addresses in Swords. The warrant was executed on 19 September 2006, and the applicant was charged on the five charge sheets.
The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the prosecutions were statute-barred. It found that the original applications for summonses had been made within the six-month limit and that the later charge sheets repeated the same complaints. The court held that the available procedures could be changed where there was good and sufficient reason, provided they were not used simultaneously.
On delay, the judge said there had been no excessive or blameworthy prosecutorial delay up to the unsuccessful service attempt in May 2005. He also found that the applicant had ignored the charge and court after missing his hearing, and rejected his claim that Gardaí should have known he had returned through football training.
But the judgment identified more than ten months with no attempt to apprehend the applicant after Gardaí were informed he was back in the Swords area, followed by a further 56 days after a later address entry. The affidavit evidence offered no explanation for that additional delay. The court therefore granted prohibition on the permitted grounds concerning fairness and the right to an expeditious trial.