A former chief executive of the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children won a High Court order yesterday preventing the DPP prosecuting him in relation to charges that include allegations of false conversion of monies collected on the society's behalf.
The proceedings aimed at stopping the prosecution were taken by Cian Ó Tighearnaigh who, his counsel stated, had been charged with 42 offences alleged to have occurred between December 1st and December 31, 1998. Mr Ó Tighearnaigh denied the allegations.
In a reserved judgment, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth granted an injunction preventing the further prosecution of Mr Ó Tighearnaigh on grounds that the delay in instituting criminal proceedings had prejudiced him in obtaining a fair trial and that the delay was such as to lead to an inference of prejudice without additional proof.
On April 29th, 2002, Mr Ó Tighearnaigh was given leave by the High Court to challenge, by way of judicial review, the DPP's decision to prosecute him.
At the hearing of the judicial review proceedings last January, senior counsel Shane Murphy, for Mr Ó Tighearnaigh, said evidence in the case appeared to have been gathered in February 1999.
There followed a delay of two years and 10 months from the date of his client's arrest until the file was sent to the DPP.
In the meantime, Mr Ó Tighearnaigh's life had moved on. He had started a new business as a chauffeur in March 2000 on the basis that nothing had happened and effectively matters had gone away. He had not contributed to the delay and he reasonably believed the threat of criminal proceedings was over.
The DPP opposed Mr Ó Tighearnaigh's claims on grounds that there had been no inordinate delay in bringing charges and that therefore there had been no violation of his constitutional rights. It was also denied that the authorities, and in particular investigating gardaí, leaked details about the progress of the investigation.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Smyth said the case was one in which the facts of the delay raised an inference that the risk of an unfair trial had been established as a reality.