The High Court has refused an application to stop a road traffic prosecution in Dublin, finding that a delay of two years and five months was undesirable but not excessive in the circumstances.
Cillian Fennell sought judicial review to restrain the Director of Public Prosecutions from continuing a summons case pending in Dublin District Court. He is charged under section 49(4) and (6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended, over an alleged offence on 18 December 2002. The judgment does not specify the alleged conduct.
The District Court case was listed for hearing on 14 November 2003, but was adjourned because a prosecution witness, Garda Dooley, was unavailable. A second hearing date, 6 April 2004, was adjourned again because the witness was on leave. On 9 November 2004, the case was not reached. A further hearing was listed for 5 May 2005.
Fennell’s application relied on the constitutional right to a trial with reasonable expedition. His counsel argued that the repeated adjournments and long gaps between hearing dates amounted to excessive delay. The application did not claim actual prejudice to the defence or that the delay created a necessary inference of a real risk of an unfair trial.
The DPP’s counsel argued that all but one of the adjournments had been justified and that there had been no delay before the summons was issued. The reasons advanced included witness unavailability and an overcrowded court list.
Justice Dunne said delay can breach the right to an expeditious trial even without evidence of actual or presumed prejudice, but each case must be assessed on its facts. She accepted that the overall delay was undesirable. However, because there were reasonable grounds for delay on at least two occasions, she concluded it could not be described as excessive.
The court refused the application. It did not prohibit the prosecution; the judgment records that the District Court hearing was scheduled for 5 May 2005.