Collapse of a criminal trial by a third party - who gets stuck with the bill(s)?

ezra_

It will be as clear as day to all where the basis of this question of comes from, but for obvious reasons, that pool shall not be disturbed (at least by this pebble).

Assuming that I am a defendant in a criminal case, which has carried on for some time and was approaching a verdict. Then, by the actions of a third party, the trial collapses, the jury is dismissed and a retrial is a real possibility.

However, I have incurred significant costs which will either be borne by me or by the State through legal aid. The State will also have incurred similar costs in bringing their case against me.

I would guess that the DPP can bring a case of contempt against the third party which can be seen as a punishment, but are costs associated with my case (either mine, the State's or both) recoverable against the third party?

ezra_

Anyone?

johnnyskeleton

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irish-times-and-examiner-must-pay-carmody-trial-collapse-costs-1.608624

Is this the case you were looking for?

Robbo

Further to this, fines for contempt against corporate entities in the past have been set at a high level . Rather predictably, the very notion of a the news media doing their job with accuracy and restraint has led to the usual hue and cry about "chilling effects".

ezra_

Thanks - so in my hypothetical example above, the third party who collapsed the case would, presumably, be on the hook for both sets of costs, as well as a fine arising from the contempt action (assuming they were found guilty of it)?

Dial Hard

Why are you pretending it's a hypothetical example when everyone knows the case you're referring to???

The news is in the public domain, you're not releasing any state secrets here.

hullaballoo

The OP is quite rightly attempting to at least give the thread the veneer of not crossing itself over the sub judice/contempt line.

If a newspaper or journalist were to be prosecuted in the circumstances alluded to by the OP, then notwithstanding the admirable attempt to avoid the line, this thread probably couldn't continue.

Dial Hard

hullaballoo wrote:

The OP is quite rightly attempting to at least give the thread the veneer of not crossing itself over the sub judice/contempt line.

There is no case currently sub judice, though. The rape case has collapsed and there is no case on the newspaper article currently before the courts. Given those facts, I genuinely can't see any issue in discussing the scenario openly.

As you said, if a contempt case were to be taken, that may change, but as things stand I fail to see any issue?

ezra_

Dial Hard wrote: »

There is no case currently sub judice, though. The rape case has collapsed and there is no case on the newspaper article currently before the courts. Given those facts, I genuinely can't see any issue in discussing the scenario openly.

As you said, if a contempt case were to be taken, that may change, but as things stand I fail to see any issue?

Apart from the reasons outlined by hullaballoo, my interest is academic and focused on the issue of the burden of costs. My hypothetical third party collapsed the case; those actions (or more particularly, actions similar in nature which may have arisen recently) aren't core to my question and their specifics, if of interest, should be discussed in another thread (or not be discussed).

Before the replies were posted this morning, it was unclear to me if a defendant (and also the state) would be left on the hook for costs for a case that collapsed due to a third party. The replies seem to suggest that this is settled.

However, some questions do remain - from a practical perspective (returning to my hypothetical question), would I, as the defendant, need to bring an action against the third party for recovery of these costs? Or is there a mechanism in the courts that allows the judge in the trial to find the third party 'directly' liable for them (along with those incurred by the DPP), or would the issue of contempt have to be settled before costs could be apportioned to the third party (as otherwise, they would be responsible for the costs arising from their 'contemptible' actions, without actually being in contempt?

ohnonotgmail

ezra_ wrote: »

Thanks - so in my hypothetical example above, the third party who collapsed the case would, presumably, be on the hook for both sets of costs, as well as a fine arising from the contempt action (assuming they were found guilty of it)?

I dont see anything in either of those two articles that suggest that the costs for a case that collapsed would be born by the third party. The costs mentioned in the first article are the costs of bringing the private contempt action only.

ezra_

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see anything in either of those two articles that suggest that the costs for a case that collapsed would be born by the third party. The costs mentioned in the first article are the costs of bringing the private contempt action only.

From the Irish Time Article linked:

Irish Times wrote:

THE IRISH Timesand the Irish Examinerhave been ordered to pay the costs of the collapsed trial of Paschal Carmody, accused of obtaining money by deception from the families of terminally ill cancer patients.

ohnonotgmail

ezra_ wrote: »

From the Irish Time Article linked:

Apologies. I thought you were responding to the post directly above yours.

Victor

ezra_ wrote: »

Thanks - so in my hypothetical example above, the third party who collapsed the case would, presumably, be on the hook for both sets of costs, as well as a fine arising from the contempt action (assuming they were found guilty of it)?

Note that the cost of a retrial should be less than the cost of the first trial, as all the pre-trial work will have been done already.

hullaballoo

Dial Hard wrote: »

There is no case currently sub judice, though. The rape case has collapsed and there is no case on the newspaper article currently before the courts. Given those facts, I genuinely can't see any issue in discussing the scenario openly.

As you said, if a contempt case were to be taken, that may change, but as things stand I fail to see any issue?

There are two cases that could be regarded as currently sub judice that this thread touches upon. Sub judice is given a very narrow interpretation by the old media to suit their objectives but there's a very strong argument that once something becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, at that point it's sub judice as it is under scrutiny by authorities.

But let's for the sake of argument take the narrow definition that a matter is sub judice for the first time when the accused has their first appearance. It remains sub judice until there is a final order in proceedings. It is then no longer sub judice unless/until the accused is brought back to court. Let's take that obviously incorrect interpretation as being the law.

Whether or not something is sub judice has only very minor bearing on whether public discourse could prejudice the respective rights of the parties to a fair trial. Arguably, once there is any incident involving a suspicion of criminal activity, any public discourse could bring with it the risk that if anyone were to be prosecuted at any time in the future, the trial might be unable to proceed for prejudice.

Basically, the law doesn't operate in a well defined sphere of reason and logic like most people would like. There are too many factors in play for definitions like the above to really apply. It may not be sub judice but there's still a risk of prejudice if it gets to that stage, so what's the difference between saying "it's sub judice and cannot be discussed" and "it could/almost certainly will become sub judice and cannot be discussed"?

We try and find a balance here in this forum (as well as across the site) so that we aren't stifling discussion but it is not without risks.

Anyway, Dial Hard, this is probably the second or third time we've had this conversation, so I'm not sure we're going to find a resolution today.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

There are two cases that could be regarded as currently sub judice that this thread touches upon. Sub judice is given a very narrow interpretation by the old media to suit their objectives but there's a very strong argument that once something becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, at that point it's sub judice as it is under scrutiny by authorities.

But let's for the sake of argument take the narrow definition that a matter is sub judice for the first time when the accused has their first appearance. It remains sub judice until there is a final order in proceedings. It is then no longer sub judice unless/until the accused is brought back to court. Let's take that obviously incorrect interpretation as being the law.

Whether or not something is sub judice has only very minor bearing on whether public discourse could prejudice the respective rights of the parties to a fair trial. Arguably, once there is any incident involving a suspicion of criminal activity, any public discourse could bring with it the risk that if anyone were to be prosecuted at any time in the future, the trial might be unable to proceed for prejudice.

Basically, the law doesn't operate in a well defined sphere of reason and logic like most people would like. There are too many factors in play for definitions like the above to really apply. It may not be sub judice but there's still a risk of prejudice if it gets to that stage, so what's the difference between saying "it's sub judice and cannot be discussed" and "it could/almost certainly will become sub judice and cannot be discussed"?

We try and find a balance here in this forum (as well as across the site) so that we aren't stifling discussion but it is not without risks.

Anyway, Dial Hard, this is probably the second or third time we've had this conversation, so I'm not sure we're going to find a resolution today.

Should we not distinguish between sub judice and the sub judice rule (aka sub judice contempt).

Sub judice by definition means "under judgement" and so implies something which is actually before the courts and would not be relevant at the investigation stage etc as you are not at that stage being judged*.

However the issue here is we have the common law rule which is slightly different and actually covers the time outside what is "under judgement". It applies from the time of charge right up until the final judgement and the sentencing stage.

Whilst the principles of the rule are interlinked with the principles of fair procedures and the administration of justice without prejudice the High Court in DPP vs Independent Newspapers (Irl) Ltd [2003] IEHC 624 confirmed the rule applied from the time you were charged, but not at the time of arrest or initial investigation*.

*The danger here however is the Court of Public Opinion has probably already passed judgement at the arrest and investigation stage.

hullaballoo

I think that's exactly the point. The definitions are largely unhelpful because it may give rise to the incorrect assumption that anything that isn't between two points in the process is fair game to say absolutely anything you want about.

But this clearly isn't the case and it's why, whenever this conversation comes up, I go back to talking about prejudice more generally. Quite clearly the fairness of a case that doesn't fit the definitions given for one that is sub judice (or falls foul of the sub judice rule, whichever you prefer) is still capable of being totally undermined by public discourse well in advance of charges.