The High Court has dismissed an application by Brendan McFarlane to permanently prohibit his trial on charges of false imprisonment and firearms possession, finding that delays in earlier judicial review proceedings did not justify stopping the prosecution.
Mr Justice Quirke’s judgment, delivered on 8 November 2006, concerned alleged offences between 25 November and 16 December 1983. McFarlane was arrested in January 1998, charged and served with a book of evidence in July that year. His trial was fixed for November 1999, but judicial review proceedings he brought to prevent it from going ahead led to an order restraining the trial.
In 2003, the High Court barred the trial because the prosecution had failed to preserve evidence, but refused relief on delay grounds. The Supreme Court overturned that order in March 2006 and dismissed McFarlane’s cross-appeal on delay. A dissenting judge would have upheld the High Court decision. McFarlane then brought the present proceedings, arguing that additional delays in the handling of the judicial review case, combined with the earlier passage of time, breached his right to an expeditious trial and caused serious hardship.
Quirke found the 13 months between a discovery motion being struck out and an affidavit of discovery being delivered was excessive, with responsibility attributable to both sides. He also found that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal took an excessive 18 months to be certified ready, without an adequate explanation. He did not find the four-month adjournment of the High Court hearing unreasonable on the evidence, and said there was no evidence that the 14-month wait for the Supreme Court judgment was necessarily excessive. No application had been made by McFarlane for priority.
The judge said there was no evidence that events after November 1999 had harmed McFarlane’s ability to defend himself or caused additional presumptive prejudice. Although the delays were inferred to have increased his stress and anxiety, that did not outweigh the public interest in prosecuting serious charges. He found no evidence that delay within the court process had interfered with a constitutional or other right.
The court dismissed the application. It did not decide whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached, saying that finding was unnecessary. It also did not consider the DPP’s arguments on estoppel or abuse of process, because of its decision on the merits. The order did not determine the criminal charges; it refused to prohibit their prosecution.