PM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM (the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial (such as the right to "prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration") were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| - PM v Director of Public Prosecutions (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - PM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM (the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial (such as the right to "prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration") were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise. (en)
|
name
| - PM v The Director of Public Prosecutions (en)
|
dct:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
caption
| |
citations
| - [2006] 3 IR 172, [2006] IESC 22, [2006] 2 ILRM 361 (en)
|
court
| |
italic title
| |
judges
| - Kearns J, Geoghegan J, Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J (en)
|
keywords
| |
has abstract
| - PM v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] IESC 22; [2006] 2 ILRM 361; [2006] 3 IR 172 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the decision of the lower court that PM (the respondent in the Supreme Court appeal) had satisfied the balancing test applicable in cases of delay in prosecution. This balancing test requires an accused to show that his/her rights that are protected by the right to a speedy trial (such as the right to "prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration") were so interfered with as to entitle him the relief he seeks. This case determined that prosecutorial delay that deprives an accused of these rights is, in and of itself, one factor to consider in carrying out the balancing exercise. (en)
|
number of judges
| |
opinions
| - When there is a prosecutorial delay, a balancing exercise must be carried out, but if there is serious blameworthy prosecutorial delay that is one factor in itself and of itself that must be considered. (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |