Two men accused of shooting a Dublin publican have spent 18 months in custody without trial because State officers panicked when they perceived there was a problem deciding the charges against them, the High Court was told yesterday.
Frank Ward (52), Knocksmore Avenue, Tallaght, and Larry Cummins (55), Summerhill Parade, Dublin, are seeking injunctions restraining the DPP from taking any further steps in prosecuting them.
Both are held on charges arising from stealing €52,000 from Charlie Chawke in the car-park of the Goat Grill, Goatstown, Co Dublin, in October 2003.
They are also seeking declarations that the State has abused the legal process.
They were arrested on the day of the shooting, and a return for trial was made in December 2003. A date was fixed for October 11th, 2004. Before that trial date, however, the State entered a nolle prosequi.
Both men were rearrested, and proceedings started afresh. They have been in custody since October 2003, and Mr Ward has made four unsuccessful bail applications.
Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne was told by Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Mr Cummins, that both sets of proceedings arose out of the same circumstances, and the same law applied.
Mr Michael O'Higgins SC, for Mr Ward, said he was applying to prevent the DPP from seeking to prosecute Mr Ward further on three firearms charges (scheduled offences) and two charges of causing Mr Chawke serious harm and committing a robbery (non-scheduled offences).
Mr O'Higgins said the State had perceived a problem because the original return for trial did not contain a stamp from the DPP consenting to the three firearms offences being tried in the Circuit Criminal Court. (Scheduled offences would be tried before the non-jury Special Criminal Court).
The State was not entitled to bring each prosecution to fruition in this instance. It found itself presented with what it perceived to be a difficulty and panicked; officials saw a problem where there was none and took a course of conduct without ascertaining the view of Mr Ward's lawyers.
It had been unnecessary to collapse the trial; that hearing could have gone ahead on the "substantive charges" which carried a life sentence. The State's actions were an interference with Mr Ward's constitutional right to an expeditious hearing and his entitlement to a presumption of innocence.
The State submits the DPP has not violated the men's rights to a trial in "due course of law and with reasonable expedition", nor has the State acted in an unfair or unreasonable manner. The return for trial of the two men had been defective.
The hearing continues today.