Failure to prosecute ‘due to office error’

ANN BRANNIGAN was about to turn in to shops situated on the main Castleblaney to Monaghan road when her Toyota Corolla was struck from behind.

The collision propelled the car into oncoming traffic and it was struck again by a vehicle rented by four German students.

Mrs Brannigan, who lived with her husband Aidan in Annyally in Co Monaghan, was severely injured following the double collision. She fought for her life but died a month later on January 3, 1996.

For more than eight years, since he first found out that no individual was to be prosecuted for any alleged actions that may have contributed to his wife’s death, Aidan Brannigan fought to find out why.

It was, he now knows, because of an “administrative mishap” over the date.

Ms Brannigan, who was in her early thirties, was involved in the accident involving her car and a mini-bus on December 4.

Following a garda investigation, a file was sent to the DPP, via the Monaghan State Solicitor. It is understood some gardaí in Monaghan wanted an individual prosecuted for dangerous driving causing death.

However, at some point, a mistake was made and the date of the accident changed in papers from December 4 to December 14. The DPP made a decision on June 12 the following year to launch a careless driving case but, given that summary cases must be initiated within six months of the alleged crime, it was immediately statute barred.

James Hamilton, who took over as Director of Public Prosecutions in 1999, was concerned about the case.

But Mr Brannigan had already initiated High Court proceedings and was seeking damages for breach of constitutional rights and a declaration that the prosecution was not statute barred. He named the DPP and the Attorney General as defendants.

The case wound its slow way through the courts and was eventually settled, without publicity, earlier this year.

But the DPP and the State fought Mr Brannigan’s claims, with the prosecutor claiming he was under no duty to commence a prosecution. It was also claimed the State does not owe a duty of care to Mr Brannigan or to the public at large as to whether to prosecute a person in respect of an alleged offence, as to the time within which such a prosecution should be brought, or as to the procedures applied by the DPP in reaching such a decision.

In the end, Mr Brannigan accepted the apology and explanation and a contribution to his costs in return for agreeing the claim be struck out.

Some criminal experts believe the apology and admission are important and could set a precedent.

One cited the case of the McBrearty family of Donegal, whose members faced more than 150 summary charges in the District Court. After years spent in and out of the courts, all charges were dropped without explanation or apology.