The applicant, Brendan McFarlane, is an Irish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Belfast. The case concerns the Irish’ authorities’ delay of more than fourteen years in initiating criminal proceedings against him for an offence allegedly committed in 1983.
In the beginning of 1998 the applicant was released on parole after serving a prison sentence in Northern Ireland for his involvement in a bombing in the 1970s for which the Irish Republican Army (“IRA”) was found to be responsible. A few days after his release, he was arrested and detained by the Irish police and subsequently charged with false imprisonment and the unlawful possession of firearms, offences he was alleged to have committed in 1983 when he had escaped from prison. The applicant was later released on bail.
The applicant brought judicial review proceedings with regard to his prosecution, claiming that the delay in instituting criminal proceedings against him had prejudiced his prospect of obtaining a fair trial and that the failure of the prosecuting authorities to maintain and have available for inspection certain items of evidence had limited his ability to fully contest the nature and strength of the evidence to be introduced at his trial. His claims regarding the delay in instituting proceedings were eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2006 finding that the decision when to prosecute clearly rested with the prosecuting authorities. With regard to the loss of evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court deciding on the applicant’s case would have to assess whether there was any unfairness for which the prosecution was responsible. A further application to prohibit the prosecution on grounds of delay was dismissed in January 2008. He was finally acquitted in June 2008.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Irish authorities delayed initiating and proceeding with the criminal proceedings against him and under Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) that, as a result of the delay, key real evidence on which the prosecution relied was lost. Relying on Article 8 § 2 (right to respect for private and family life) he further complains that his arrest and detention amounted to a deliberate and disproportionate interference with his private and family life. He also alleges, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that there was no effective remedy under Irish law for his grievances, in particular that concerning the length of the proceedings.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 2006.
|
|