PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Cavan, had pleaded not guilty to intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm to a baby girl at the accused’s home on March 28th, 2012. The child survived. In June, 2015, Ms Higgins first went on trial but the jury was discharged after failing to reach a verdict. A retrial followed in May, 2016, but it collapsed after it emerged a jury had been Googling the background of a witness in the case. In January, 2018, another jury was sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before the trial properly opened and so the jury was discharged. And last month the fourth trial process collapsed with it emerged emails between expert witnesses in the case had not been disclosed to the defence. The fact the expert witnesses were in contact was not the contentious issue. Instead, it was the non-disclosure of that contact to the defence side in the trial that caused problems."
------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "DPP's decision not to retry Sandra Higgins brings end to saga," by reporter Conor Lally, published by The Irish Times on July 13, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: "Cavan childminder who had been accused of harming baby faced four previous trials."
PHOTO CAPTION: "Sandra
Higgins (37) arrives on Thursday at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court
where the DPP entered a nolle prosequi against her."
GIST: "The decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to have a fifth trial of child minder Sandra Higgins bring to an end a six-year criminal justice process that will now have no resolution. Ms. Higgins entered that process with the presumption of innocence and leaves with the same status.
Since the date of the alleged harm
caused to the baby in her care, on March 28th, 2012, a lengthy criminal
investigation has run its course and the DPP authorised criminal
charges to be laid against her. However, when the case finally
reached the courts, a multitude of problems arose, resulting in three
aborted trial processes and a hung jury at the end of the one trial that
ran its course. The DPP does not explain its decisions, including why it does not retry particular cases. Informed legal sources said in
some cases it becomes clear during an initial trial that the evidence is
not as strong as first believed. Because of that, if a jury fails to
reach a verdict or a trial is discontinued for any reason, the DPP will
decide against a retrial. In other cases, like that of Sandra Collins; when repeated efforts at a trial do not succeed, other factors come in to play, the sources said. “If the DPP goes again and again;
at some point it begins to appear like perhaps there’s campaign against a
defendant,” said one.
Even the perception that there may
be a campaign against a defendant, and the damage that might do to the
case and the wider justice system, is enough to discouraged a retrial,
the source added. ‘Tipping point’: Another legal source concurs: “It
may seem it’s being rerun again and again until the ‘right’ outcome is
achieved; as if it’s been decided from the outset the person is guilty.” A “tipping point” was reached and a case would become “contaminated”. “If someone is presented to the
public, in court and in the media, as the accused often enough is there a
chance that in itself influences a jury against the defendant? That’s
what the DPP has to consider.” There was nothing to stop the
State proceeding with a fifth trial process in the case of Ms Higgins
though the 37-year-old from Cavan could have mounted a legal challenge
to stop it. Ms Higgins (37) of The Beeches,
Drumgola Wood, Cavan, had pleaded not guilty to intentionally or
recklessly causing serious harm to a baby girl at the accused’s home on
March 28th, 2012. The child survived. In June, 2015, Ms Higgins first
went on trial but the jury was discharged after failing to reach a
verdict. A retrial followed in May, 2016, but it collapsed after it
emerged a jury had been Googling the background of a witness in the
case. In January, 2018, another jury was
sworn in for a third trial but an unspecified legal issue arose before
the trial properly opened and so the jury was discharged. And last month the fourth trial
process collapsed with it emerged emails between expert witnesses in the
case had not been disclosed to the defence. The fact the expert witnesses were
in contact was not the contentious issue. Instead, it was the
non-disclosure of that contact to the defence side in the trial that
caused problems."
The entire story can be read at the link below:
