The High Court prohibited the prosecution of Anthony Grogan over an alleged armed robbery at Dublin Airport in October 1999, finding that the State’s delay in bringing the case was excessive and inexcusable.
Mr Justice Barry White delivered judgment on 28 July 2006. The court made the prohibition order against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). It made no order against the Judges of the Circuit Criminal Court, the first named respondent.
Grogan had been arrested in November 1999 and interviewed about the airport robbery. He allegedly made admissions, but was released without charge. After travelling to the United Kingdom, he was convicted there of attempting to handle traveller’s cheques that were part of the robbery proceeds and sentenced to three months in prison.
He was extradited to Ireland in April 2000 under warrants relating to other offences. Neither warrant referred to the airport robbery. After returning, he pleaded guilty to a separate robbery charge for which he had been extradited and later received a five-year sentence. The DPP entered a nolle prosequi on a murder charge against him. In July 2002, Grogan was charged over the airport robbery and returned for trial.
Grogan argued that the delay was unexplained and unfair, and that the DPP had failed to include the airport charges in the extradition process. The DPP submitted that it had obtained a UK certificate waiving the speciality rule, permitting the prosecution, and that the delay arose from matters outside its control and the complexity of the case.
The judge found that the first request for the waiver certificate was not made until October 2001, around 18 months after Grogan returned to Ireland. The DPP’s affidavit referred to correspondence and queries with the Gardaí, the Chief State Solicitor’s office and UK authorities, but the correspondence was not exhibited. The judge rejected the claim that the case was complex, noting that Grogan had allegedly made admissions and that prosecution did not need to await the investigation of three other suspects.
The court found that Grogan had been deprived of a trial with reasonable expedition. It said the delay itself justified prohibition, whether or not actual or presumed prejudice was established. The judge also said Grogan might have contested extradition had the airport robbery been included, and that the timing of charges could have affected whether he received a similar sentence for both robberies. These were stated as possible prejudice, not as a finding that the outcome would have been different.