The High Court has refused an application by solicitor Patrick Enright to prohibit the Director of Public Prosecutions from continuing a prosecution on ten forgery charges. The decision did not determine whether Mr Enright was guilty of those charges; it concerned whether the prosecution should be stopped before trial.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2005, Mr Justice O’Neill rejected the grounds advanced in the judicial review proceedings. The prosecution had been stayed while the application was pending. The court’s decision removed the basis for that stay, but the judgment did not set out a further timetable for the criminal case.
Mr Enright argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary examination because documents mentioned in witness statements had not been supplied. The judge held that the prosecution was required to list as exhibits documents it intended to put in evidence at trial. The listed exhibits had been included in the Book of Evidence and made available to Mr Enright. The judgment said he could inspect the originals and request clean copies if photocopies were difficult to read.
The court also rejected his claim that representations had been made that repayment of money to his former employer would prevent prosecution. The judge found that Mr Enright had not established on the balance of probabilities that such assurances or threats had been made. He said that, even if a representation had been made, it could not prevent the DPP from exercising the statutory function of deciding whether to prosecute. Any threats relating to Mr Enright’s first statement could be raised in a challenge to its admissibility at trial, the judge said, but did not justify prohibition.
On delay, the judgment noted that more than ten years had passed since the investigation began in 1994. It accepted the explanation that the investigation involved complex fraud, bank records and evidence from abroad, and found no inordinate delay by the State up to the charges in August 1996. The judge attributed the subsequent period largely to the judicial review and related discovery applications, and rejected the claim that the State had denied Mr Enright an expeditious trial.
The judge also found that allegations of improper disclosure to the media and State involvement in a Law Society investigation had not been proved. Claims of prejudice from unavailable witnesses were described as speculative. Other complaints, including a later disclosure claim, were outside the grounds for which leave had been granted or matters for the trial judge. The application for prohibition and the other reliefs sought were refused.