Court awards €500k costs to murder accused

IN a highly unusual decision, a man accused of murder has been awarded costs of €500,000 by the Supreme Court to pay for an unsuccessful legal bid to halt his trial.

The Supreme Court decision is a departure from the normal rule that costs go to the winning party.

The court made the award to Dubliner Brian Rattigan against the Director of Public Prosecutions because of the prosecution’s delay and “lurid” pre-trial publicity.

Mr Justice John Murray, said the case raised serious issues concerning the integrity of the criminal trial process.

The five-judge court decided, given the exceptional circumstances of the case, to award all costs of the proceedings in the High and Supreme Courts to Mr Rattigan.

The judges criticised the DPP’s office for ongoing delays in progressing the case and said the DPP himself should be more pro-active in taking contempt of court proceedings where adverse publicity is involved.

Earlier this month, the five-judge court rejected the appeal by Mr Rattigan, 27, of Cooley Road, Drimnagh, against the High Court’s refusal to stop his trial on a charge of murdering Declan Gavin, 20, of Mourne Road, Drimnagh, on August 25, 2001 at the entrance to a fast food outlet in Crumlin.

Mr Rattigan, who denies the charge, had claimed his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by delay in prosecuting him, by adverse publicity and by the failure of gardaí to record interviews.

While refusing to halt the trial, the court expressed strong criticism of cumulative delays of some 34 months in the DPP’s office in progressing the case and also criticised prejudicial pre-trial publicity, including publicity in the Sunday World, Sunday Tribune and Daily Irish Mail after Mr Rattigan had brought legal proceedings about such publicity. Contempt proceedings are pending against some media outlets.

Giving the main judgement of the court, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan expressed surprise that the DPP had not taken any contempt of court proceedings but left Mr Rattigan to do so himself.

The DPP should be more pro-active in the area of contempt of court proceedings where adverse publicity is involved, he said.

The law “is quite simple”, the judge added. When a person has been charged with a crime, the crime must not be reported or discussed in a way which could potentially prejudice jurors in a trial. The media was also not entitled to take the “fade factor” into account in its reporting and must adopt the long-established rule of protection of a person charged with the crime.

Mr Rattigan was first arrested on September 4, 2001, on suspicion of murder and released the next day without charge.

In March 2002, the gardaí sent a file to the DPP who in September 2003 directed Mr Rattigan be charged with murder. He was remanded in custody seven times because of delays in producing the Book of Evidence. Because of those delays, the case against him was struck out in December 2003 but, 16 months later, he was again charged.

Mr Justice Geoghegan said alleged excuses for this delay were not impressive but said Mr Rattigan had failed to show the delay created a real risk of an unfair trial.

Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman went on to say that were it not for the existence of dramatic and important evidence in the case, he would have stopped the trial of Mr Rattigan on grounds of gross cumulative delay by the DPP leading to prejudicial events and the “lurid and grossly prejudicial publicity” involved.

Failure by gardaí to record interviews would be taken most seriously, he added.