The Supreme Court granted Veronica Noonan’s request to stop a prosecution continuing, citing gross and extraordinary delay and the particular circumstances of the case.
In a judgment delivered on 27 July 2007, Chief Justice Murray said he agreed with the judgment of Ms Justice Denham, which set out the case’s history and facts. He added observations on the Court’s discretion to prohibit the prosecution continuing in special circumstances.
The judgment said that discretion was analogous to the approach taken in *Dawson v Hamill (No. 2)*, a 1991 case concerning whether a prosecution should be remitted for retrial after a conviction had been quashed. In that case, the Court considered delay, the burden of a renewed prosecution and the interests of justice.
Murray CJ said there was a public interest in bringing prosecutions to trial, and that the seriousness of the offence was relevant to the balance. He described the offences in this case, in light of its particular facts, as far from the higher end of the scale. That was an important consideration alongside the extraordinary delay.
Having considered the factors described in the judgments of Denham J and Mr Justice Hardiman, Murray CJ concluded that the Court should exercise its discretion and grant the relief sought by Ms Noonan. The judgment excerpt does not specify the precise form of the relief beyond stopping the prosecution from continuing, or provide details of the alleged offences or the delay’s duration.