King's Inns Dip I - Due Process/right To Fair Trial

Front 1

State (Howard) v. Donnelly

Back 1

Right to be informed of the charge against you and answer complaints

Front 2

State (Buchan) v. Coyne

Back 2

Right to an interpreter

Front 3

State (Healy) v. Donoghue

Back 3

Right to counsel; Right to free legal aid

Front 4

King v. DPP

Back 4

Right not to have previous convictions used against you in evidence; Right to have certainty over the charge against you

Front 5

Heaney v. Ireland

Back 5

Right against self-incrimination

Front 6

Rock v. Ireland

Back 6

Inferences can be drawn from silence

Front 7

DPP v. Madden

Back 7

Statement made after 48 hours (accused was arrested under the Offences Against the State Act 1939) was held as inadmissible.

Reasonable access to a lawyer does not require a Garda to offer it to the accused, and in the absence of a request for same, statements made in its absence are admissible.

Front 8

DPP v. Healy

Back 8

Statement taken without reasonable access to a solicitor was inadmissible

Front 9

DPP v. Shaw

Back 9

Statements made after expiry of legitimate period of detention were accepted, given the extraordinary excusing circumstances of the possibility of the victim of a murder still being alive. Her right to life outweighed the accused's right to a fair trial

Evidence is inadmissible if wrought from physical or psychological pressure.

Front 10

DPP v. O'Loughlin

Back 10

Heroin was found in a man hole near a house that was searched by the police. This suggested that it had been flushed down the toilet in advance of their arrival.

The court held that, in a hypothetical situation, the prevention of the destruction of evidence would could override the right to a fair trial.

Front 11

Freeman v. DPP

Back 11

Police pursued a suspect into a private residence and found stolen goods. This evidence was admissible.

Front 12

AG v. O'Brien

Back 12

A search warrant listed the wrong street (Cashel Road instead of Captain's Road) due to an administrative error. Evidence gleaned from a search of the correct house was held as admissible, as the defect was patent.

Front 13

DPP v. Balfe

Back 13

A defective warrant didn't accurately describe a dwelling, but the evidence gleaned from the search of the house was deemed admissible as the defect was patent only.

Front 14

DPP v. Kenny

Back 14

A Peace Commissioner merely rubber-stamped a search warrant and did not inquire or seek evidence from the Gardai about the nature of the suspected offence or the search. This was held as inadmissible as the defct was latent.

Front 15

DPP v. Kelly

Back 15

Accused was moved from Garda station to Garda station three times to prevent contact with family and/or solicitors. His statements were inadmissible.

Front 16

DPP v. Buck

Back 16

Questioning a detainee pending arrival of his solicitor is lawful and the statements are admissible.

Not compatible with Right to a Fair Trial, Article 6 ECHR.

Front 17

Cadder

Back 17

English case establishing that the UK was in breach of Article 6 by allowing questioning before a solicitor had arrived.

Front 18

Salduz v. Turkey

Back 18

ECHR case establishing that the Turkey was in breach of Article 6 by allowing questioning before a solicitor had arrived. Particular regard was had for the young age of the applicant at the time of questioning.

Front 19

DPP (Lavelle) v. McCrea

Back 19

Failure to allow access to a solicitor made detention unlawful from moment of denial of rights.

Front 20

Lavery v. Member in Charge, Carrickmacross

Back 20

Applicant arrested under Offences Against the State Act 1939. Supreme Court ruled that it was not unlawful to deny interview notes to his solicitor.

Kelly notes that if inferences can be drawn from the accused's silence, then surely a solicitor should have the right to see what questions have been put to him in order to prepare a defence.

Front 21

DPP v. McNally

Back 21

Interrogation over the course of 40 hours was inadmissible

Front 22

DPP v. Lynch

Back 22

Statements made after 22 hours without access to sleep or family were inadmissible.

Front 23

Fr. Patrick Ryan

Back 23

Unfair pre-trial publicity; John Murray (AG) refused to extradite him to UK on conspiracy charges due to comments in Commons and media alleging guilt. It was felt he could not hope to face a fair trial and his constitutional rights would not be vindicated if he were extradited.

Front 24

D v. DPP

Back 24

There was a mistrial, and the jury was dismissed, causing much media attention. The applicant contested that the implications of guilt in the media infringed on his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court ruled the case could go ahead

Front 25

Z. v. DPP

Back 25

The alleged rapist in the X case contest that the level of pre-trial publicity damaged his chances of a fair trial. The Supreme Court ruled the case could go ahead with appropriate direction given to the jury. It was also noted that the media did not identify who Z was.

Front 26

Zoe Developments v. DPP

Back 26

It was noted here that a fade factor exists in terms of media attention and the right to a fair trial.

Front 27

Braddish v. DPP

Back 27

Gardai dispensed with CCTV footage inculpating accused. The Supreme Court threw out the case.

Front 28

Bowes & McGrath v. DPP

Back 28

First named defendant: stopped in a car with drugs; sought to inspect the car 18 months later, but it had been disposed of; Hardiman J rejected application, noting the applicant's confession and his lengthy delay.

Second named defendant: dangerous driving causing death; no witnesses; evidence entirely circumstantial; motorcycle disposed of. Violation of rights.

Front 29

McFarlane v. DPP

Back 29

Authenticated photographs allowed (capable of independent verification)

Inordinate prosecutorial delay impinges on the right to a fair trial. The court will balance the community's entitlement to justice with the right to a fair trial

Front 30

K v. Judge Carroll Moran

Back 30

Principles governing sex abuse cases in the distant past:

1. High Court should be slow to interfere with DPP
2. Presumption of a fair trial - the onus of proof to the contrary rests with the defendant
3. The judge and jury will be advised to consider the lapse of time
4. The defendant must show more than a mere lapse in years
5. Dominion may have prevented complaint
6. Exceptional circumstances (age, infirmity) pay prevent trial going ahead
7. The test, as always, is whether there is a real risk of an unfair trial
8. Memory fades with time

Front 31

DPP v. Walsh

Back 31

Right to be given reason for arrest

Front 32

John Murray v. UK

Back 32

Inference from silence is permissible as long as it is corroborative, rather than the only evidence used by the court.

Front 33

Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare

Back 33

Latin maxim: right against self-incrimination.

Front 34

Damache v. DPP

Back 34

Members of investigative teams are not sufficiently independent to issue search warrants.

Front 35

DPP v. Delaney

Back 35

Case establishing right of Gardai to enter dwelling without a warrant in order to safeguard life and limb.

Front 36

Dokie v. DPP

Back 36

Offence of failure to produce identification 'without reasonable excuse' was found to be unconstitutional due to vagueness