Former Clare GP Paschal Carmody has secured a stay - to continue pending the outcome of High Court proceedings - on his retrial on charges of defrauding terminally-ill patients.
The former doctor secured leave from the High Court today to bring judicial review proceedings aimed at halting his retrial, ordered by the DPP after a jury at Ennis Circuit Court jury failed to reach a verdict on 11 charges.
Mr Justice Michael Peart said the leave order acts as a stay on the retrial pending the determination of the full proceedings by the High Court.
Mr Carmody claims the absence of a crucial witness breaches his Constitutional right to a fair trial and also contends the delay in prosecuting him creates a real risk of an unfair trial.
Mr Carmody (60) of Ballycuggeran in Killaloe, was cleared by a jury last July after a five week trial of 14 counts of false pretences and deception. The jury failed to reach verdicts on the remaining 11 charges and the DPP subsequently said he is
to proceed with a retrial on those outstanding charges.
The case was due for mention in Limerick Circuit Court next Monday when the State was due to apply to have the retrial heard in Dublin.
The charges relate to monies obtained from three terminally-ill patients who received therapy at the East Clinic in Killaloe in 2001 and 2002.
Patrick Marrinan SC, for Mr Carmody, said today the crucial witness needed for a fair trial was the late Mark Hadden, from Tinahely, Wicklow.
Mr Hadden had been diagnosed with cancer and in 1996 was treated with a photodynamic therapy offered to patients by Mr Carmody, counsel said. Mr Hadden underwent what was described as "a miraculous" recovery, later playing rubgy for Leinster, marrying and having a child but died 12 years later, a month before Mr Carmody's trial started last July.
Counsel said the prosecution's case was that Mr Carmody had made representations to three people saying he could cure them but it had emerged during the trial this year they had attended the former doctor on foot of reports about the successful treatment of Mr Hadden.
The family of one of the complainants had actually gone to see Mr Hadden in his home in Wicklow while another had also been in direct contact with Mr Hadden, counsel said.
Mr Hadden was "a banner bearer" for the treatment and his evidence would have been crucial to Dr Carmody's defence, counsel added.
As a result of the absence of Mr Hadden, Mr Carmody's ability to defend himself has been severely prejudiced as this witness could have been of "significant assistance" in providing evidence in relation to the credibility and reliability of the people making the complaints, it is claimed.
The delay in prosecuting him in relation to alleged offences in 2001 and 2002 had prejudiced him in his defence and there was therefore a real risk of an unfair trial, it is also claimed. As a result of the prosecution, Mr Carmody claims he suffers
from severe stress and anxiety, stigmatisation in the media and the community and disruption to his work and family life.
His right to trial without delay had been irreparably affected by the failure of the DPP to proceed with the prosecution with expedition, it is also claimed.