The High Court has refused to prohibit the prosecution of William Kiely, finding approximately four years and six months of prosecutorial delay but concluding that a fair trial remained possible.
In a judgment delivered on 5 March 2021, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan said the delay was significant. However, she found no evidence that it had impaired the defence, caused heightened anxiety or concern, or created a real and serious risk that the trial would be unfair.
Kiely sought to stop his prosecution and obtain declarations that it breached his rights to a fair trial with reasonable expedition and to private and family life. The case concerns allegations of theft between 10 November 2008 and 15 February 2013. The judgment says the disputed sum was in or around €1 million and that 13 complainants were involved. The allegations are that money was given to Kiely, then a financial adviser, for investment in the United States property market, but the investment was not made and the money was not repaid. These are allegations; the High Court was deciding the judicial review application, not the criminal charges.
A complaint by Terry Devitt, acting for eight complainants, was made to gardaí on 15 August 2011. Kiely was arrested and charged on 31 July 2019. The Book of Evidence was served on 5 February 2020, when he was returned for trial. The judgment records that the investigation involved financial records, orders to obtain documents from banks and mutual assistance requests to the United States and United Kingdom.
Justice O’Regan attributed about four and a half years of delay to the prosecution, after allowing for investigative work and other periods that she considered reasonable. In balancing that delay, she noted that Kiely was on bail, had secured employment in 2016 and visited his parents once or twice a month. The court also considered that no deliberate delay was alleged, no defence impairment was identified, documentary evidence would be important at trial, and the case involved serious allegations and a substantial sum.
The judge said it had not been shown that a fair trial was impossible or that there was a real and serious risk of unfairness. The court therefore refused prohibition. The judgment does not determine whether Kiely is guilty; the prosecution was not stopped.