| dbo:description
|
- Irish Supreme Court case (en)
|
| dbp:appealedFrom
| |
| dbp:appealedTo
| |
| dbp:caption
| |
| dbp:citations
|
- O'C v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 (en)
|
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:decisionBy
|
- Keane C.J., Denham J., Murray J., Hardiman J., Geoghegan J. (en)
|
| dbp:fullName
|
- O'C v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 (en)
|
| dbp:italicTitle
| |
| dbp:judges
|
- Keane C.J., Denham J., Murray J., Hardiman J., Geoghegan J. (en)
|
| dbp:keywords
|
- Right to Fair Trial, Reasonable Expedition, Significant Delay, Indecent Assault, Sexual Abuse, Presumption of Innocence (en)
|
| dbp:name
|
- O'C v DPP [2000] 3 I.R. 87 (en)
|
| dbp:opinions
|
- The public interest in ensuring that every person received a fair trial took precedence over the public interest in the prosecution and punishment of crime. The delay in making the original complaint would not be grounds for prohibiting the prosecution. The applicant had established specific prejudice as a result of the delay and the order of the High Court would be upheld. However, this was done as an exception to the general rule. It was held that the right of the State to proceed with prosecuting cases where there had been a long delay was subject to the right of the accused to receive a fair and speedy trial. However in this trial the case did not turn solely on the issue of delay but rather on the absence of evidence which the applicant could have relied on had there not been such a delay. The Court held that the applicant had established specific prejudice as a result of the delay in the case and order of the High Court would be affirmed. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dct:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:label
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
