Judgment: 2012-06-07 · Court archive

Supreme Court refuses to halt James Kennedy corruption trial over Carrickmines rezoning

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • James Kennedy (Applicant)
  • Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
  • Frank Dunlop
What

Supreme Court refuses to halt James Kennedy corruption trial over Carrickmines rezoning

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Carrickmines
  • Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
  • Dublin County Council
  • Supreme Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Chief Justice Susan Denham held that the central reason for the delay was the DPP’s decision to await the prosecution and conviction or acquittal of Frank Dunlop before relying on him as a witness. Mr Dunlop had been charged with corruption offences in 2008, pleaded guilty in January 2009 and was sentenced in May 2009.

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for James Kennedy’s trial on 16 corruption charges concerning alleged payments to public representatives linked to the rezoning of lands at Carrickmines.

Mr Kennedy had sought to prohibit the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial, arguing that the lengthy delay in bringing the prosecution breached his right to an expeditious and fair trial.

The charges allege that money was corruptly given to members of Dublin County Council in 1992 and to office holders or directors of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in 1997 as inducements or rewards for votes concerning the zoning of Carrickmines lands. The allegations remained unproven at this stage.

The Director of Public Prosecutions directed in June 2010 that Mr Kennedy and five others be brought before the courts. Mr Kennedy was charged with 16 offences in October 2010 and a trial was initially fixed for October 2011. He instead commenced judicial review proceedings seeking to stop the prosecution.

Chief Justice Susan Denham held that the central reason for the delay was the DPP’s decision to await the prosecution and conviction or acquittal of Frank Dunlop before relying on him as a witness. Mr Dunlop had been charged with corruption offences in 2008, pleaded guilty in January 2009 and was sentenced in May 2009.

The Supreme Court found that waiting for that process to conclude was reasonable. Calling Mr Dunlop earlier could have created an issue over whether he was giving evidence to obtain some benefit for himself.

Mr Kennedy also relied on the deaths of potential witnesses. The court found that several had died before the corruption investigation began and that the substance of evidence from others could be obtained from alternative sources. It held that the claimed prejudice had not been established.

A separate challenge concerning undisclosed documents also failed. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order upheld, allowing the criminal trial to proceed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review