The Supreme Court dismissed Mark Nash’s appeal seeking to prohibit his trial for the murders of two women at Orchard View, sheltered accommodation at Grangegorman Psychiatric Hospital in Dublin. The court upheld the High Court’s refusal to stop the trial, while leaving key questions about the effects of delay for the trial judge.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2015, Mr Justice Clarke explained why he supported the court’s decision. The Supreme Court had indicated it would dismiss the appeal and give its reasons later. Nash faced charges relating to the murders; the appeal did not decide whether he was guilty.
The judgment said both Nash and Dean Lyons, who is deceased, had confessed to the murders and later purported to retract their confessions. The accounts were contradictory. The prosecution contended that later forensic evidence provided a sufficient case to bring Nash to trial. It relied on blood samples found on his clothing, which it said were identified as blood from the two victims.
Nash argued that the lapse of time would prejudice his defence, particularly his ability to point to Lyons as a possible perpetrator. Clarke said Nash could seek to make that argument, subject to the rules of evidence and procedure. Whether evidence about Lyons’s confession or other potential perpetrators would be admissible was for the trial judge to decide.
Clarke said the case was not clearly one in which time had made a genuine trial on the merits impossible. He also said it was uncertain whether prosecuting authorities had culpably delayed using enhanced forensic techniques, and whether earlier use would have materially improved the evidence available to the defence. Those questions, and the extent of any impairment to the defence, could be assessed more fully by the trial judge.
The judgment set out that a trial should be stopped in advance only in a clear case where the balance of fairness outweighed the constitutional value of deciding criminal charges at trial. Clarke was not satisfied that this threshold had been met. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed the trial to proceed; it did not determine whether any delay had ultimately made the trial unfair. The trial judge was to assess that issue in light of the evidence and any admissibility decisions. Clarke also agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Charleton on the separate pre-trial publicity issue, without adding further comment.