Mark Nash has lost a Supreme Court appeal seeking damages for the delay in prosecuting him for murdering two women in Grangegorman, Dublin almost 20 years ago.
Nash is serving a life sentence, which is under appeal, for the murders of Sylvia Sheils (59) and Mary Callanan (61) at their sheltered housing in 1997. He was previously convicted of murdering two people in Ballintober, Co Roscommon in 1997.
In 2012, the High Court dismissed proceedings brought by Nash against the DPP aimed at preventing the trial over the Grangegorman murders from proceeding.
He had sought the prohibition of his trial on grounds including the delay in bringing the charges, publicity surrounding the case, and because of the unavailability of witnesses including Dean Lyons who died in 2000.
Nash also claimed he was entitled to damages because his rights to a trial with due expedition, under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Act 2003, had been breached.
The High Court dismissed his application to stop his prosecution. That court, in a separate judgment, also dismissed the damages claim. He appealed both decisions to the Supreme Court which dismissed the attempt to stop his prosecution which meant the trial went ahead.
State delay not established
The question of damages remained and on Monday, in a unanimous judgment, a five-judge Supreme Court also dismissed it.
Giving the judgment, Mr Justice Frank Clarke said it was clear damages may be available for breach of a right to a timely trial, either under the Constitution or the 2003 ECHR Act, at least at the level of general principle.
It was necessary to start an analysis of Nash’s damages claim by reference to the facts of the case; whether any case had been made out for culpable delay on the part of the State, or others for whom the State may be responsible.
He was not satisfied any culpable delay on the parts of the State or others had been established in the circumstances of this case.
Mr Justice Clarke said he would leave it to a case in which culpable delay has been established on what the relevant parameters are on jurisdiction to award damages under the ECHR Act or the Constitution.
It did not seem appropriate to address those issues in the abstract in a case where such delay has not been established, he said.
The court also dismissed a cross-appeal by the DPP against a decision to award Nash some of the costs of his action.