Preparation of a file by the DPP's Office

strassenwo!f

The Wikipedia page on Tom Humphries, the (former?) Irish Times sports columnist, states that he was "interrogated" in September 2012, and that the DPP's office then prepared a file on potential criminal charges related to him.

If indeed this file indicates that he should be brought to trial, is it normal that it would take such a long time to do so? Over a year on? Is it a case of great complexity, like some of the banker trials coming up?

hullaballoo

I'm not sure I understand your query. Do you think it's unusual that a case of this nature would take time to get to trial?

It seems that this man's health has been quite poor for the past while. Obviously, that would add to the time it takes to investigate but it still isn't a peculiarly long period of time for an investigation.

strassenwo!f

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand your query. Do you think it's unusual that a case of this nature would take time to get to trial?

Well, that's really what I'm asking you, and the others on this board. I really have no idea how long it usually takes the DPP's office to prepare a file on a particular case.

hullaballoo wrote: »

It seems that this man's health has been quite poor for the past while. Obviously, that would add to the time it takes to investigate but it still isn't a peculiarly long period of time for an investigation.

Thanks.

hullaballoo

Well, cases of a serious nature such as this one tend to take time to get to trial. From what I can see, the allegations are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough investigation. That seems to have taken place.

The latest information I could find is that the file has been sent to the DPP. The office of the DPP deals with a great many cases that must be considered. A direction to prosecute or not is not a decision that can be made in any haste, so the file might be under the DPP's scrutiny for some time before a direction is given.

In the above circumstances, it is not a particularly long period of time since the allegations arose for the investigative process.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cody Pomeray

It is reasonably uncommon for files to take more than 6 months for a direction.

In fact, there's no reason to assume a direction hasn't been forthcoming from the DPP. That is hardly ever adverted to, until the matter comes on for trial, or is soon expected to.

Given that this case is not near the higher rung of seriousness in the context of all criminal cases, that it is not likely to involve complex or novel points of law, and that it does not seem to have moved along at all, it seems likely that there are extenuating factors beyond the immediate nature of the case.

Health issues, for example.

Santa Cruz

The file in this case isn't too complicated, statements and medical reports, but the time frame wouldn't be excessive either. What might be delaying progress is that he may not be available for charging if he was in a medical facility

nuac

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The file in this case isn't too complicated, statements and medical reports, but the time frame wouldn't be excessive either. What might be delaying progress is that he may not be available for charging if he was in a medical facility

Nothing simple about prosecutions - takes time.

amen

Health issues, for example.

a bit off post but why should the health issues of a possible defendant matter ?

What about the rights of the accuser ? Should justice not be see to be done?

what happens if the defendant dies before the matter comes to court ?

hullaballoo

Are you suggesting that a dead person should be prosecuted?

I'm not sure whether your post is serious or not. If it is, then you have an extraordinary view of justice.

Pro Hoc Vice

amen wrote: »

a bit off post but why should the health issues of a possible defendant matter ?

What about the rights of the accuser ? Should justice not be see to be done?

what happens if the defendant dies before the matter comes to court ?

Question 1 it mattered in this case as AGS could not interview the accused, for about a year due to two separate serious illness. In relation to any case it may cause an issue if the accused is so unwell so as not being able to run his own Defence, but the court has to weigh up all the relevant information.

The accuser while having certain rights, the courts usually balance any right in favor of the accused as he has the right to a fair trial, and remains innocent until proven guilty. Justice is seen to be done as first the DPP weigh up all the evidence and if decision to prosecute and the accused is very ill the court make a public decision after weighing up the justice of the situation.

If an accused dies before trial the matter is struck out and in the eyes of the law the accused retains the presumption of innocence.

coylemj

amen wrote: »

a bit off post but why should the health issues of a possible defendant matter ?

The accused has to be in a fit state to defend himself, hence there's no point in kicking off a prosecution if there's no imminent prospect of holding a trial.

amen wrote: »

What about the rights of the accuser ? Should justice not be see to be done?

The accused is also entitled to justice. Justice can't be 'seen to be done' if the accused is railroaded into court but not able to put up a decent defence through mental or physical infirmity.

amen wrote: »

what happens if the defendant dies before the matter comes to court

Unless you live in Russia, the criminal case dies with you.

Cody Pomeray

Sergei Magnitsky, Jeanne d'Arc, and Oliver Cromwell. Fine company for any person to find themselves in, post mortem, in fairness.

Santa Cruz

nuac wrote: »

Nothing simple about prosecutions - takes time.

I didn't say it was simple but there are straightforward investigations and complicated investigations. How much time is needed?
They have a suspect, they have complainants, take the statements, get the medical records, get the mobile phone data and do the file. If the suspect is under medical care in a hospital he is not available for interview. Should be no other reason for delay.

Valentine1

Santa Cruz wrote: »

I didn't say it was simple but there are straightforward investigations and complicated investigations. How much time is needed?
They have a suspect, they have complainants, take the statements, get the medical records, get the mobile phone data and do the file. If the suspect is under medical care in a hospital he is not available for interview. Should be no other reason for delay.

Nobody but the Gardai and DPP know how complicated or straightforward this investigation is. the Complainant may be reticent, statements may be contradictory and other evidence may be inconclusive. All of these can lead to delays. Ultimately there may not be any case to answer, charges were never preferred so they won't be dropped, the file will simply sit.

Cody Pomeray

Valentine1 wrote: »

Nobody but the Gardai and DPP know how complicated or straightforward this investigation is. the Complainant may be reticent, statements may be contradictory and other evidence may be inconclusive. All of these can lead to delays.

I think santa cruz is just being realistic.

If a file has been sent to the DPP, the investigation has been well advanced, and it is overwhelmingly likely that some direction has been given, or is pending some external event beyond the investigation (e.g. health matters being cleared up).

Insufficient evidence is the most common reason not to prosecute. It tends to emerge and become obvious quite rapidly. If there is insufficient evidence, it would be highly strange for that not to be clear to the DPP one year on. And since a file was sent, and the prosecution not been dropped, the chances are that evidence is not the problem.

Similarly, sexual offences, especially those involving direct sexual contact with young adults, are not ranked among the higher complexity criminal cases coming before the courts. There is nothing in what has been reported about this investigation to suggest that.

Given that we know there are complicated health concerns relating to the accused, the most sensible thing to speculate (if we really are going to speculate, here...) is that the health of the accused is a concern.

What I am saying here are only general principles. Obviously nobody here knows the specifics of this case, we're just stating general points that usually apply.

strassenwo!f

Thanks to the board for the thoughtful, balanced comments above to the opening post.