The court agreed that there was in fact a risk of unfair trial due to the misplacing of the evidence against the applicant, McFarlane. The prosecution appealed the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the prosecution's appeal, resulting in McFarlane's cross-appeal being refused. The court found that although the evidence had been lost, there was still photographic evidence of the prints, and all the forensic examination of the fingerprints had been completed "before" the items were lost. The Supreme Court had thus concluded there was no risk of an unfair trial. Article 38.1 of the Constitution has not been breached. A prohibiting order prevents a public body or court from acting beyond its powers in the future.There was a delay before his arrest. However, the judges found that it was not sufficient enough an issue to grant a prohibition. They found that it was in fact legitimate for the Irish police to have waited for the prison in the North to release him before he could be arrested in the Republic. After the initial prohibition was lifted, McFarlane sought a second prohibition order on the 15th of May 2006. In this action, he argued the delay dating back to November 1999 (during his initial prohibition action). He argued that his constitutional right to a trial with reasonable expedition had been breached, and so he was exposed the risk of an unfair trial. He claimed a systematic delay. A systematic delay arises when the State fails to provide the adequate resources for the litigation process. The prosecution had been delayed by 6 years, since the initial judicial review was brought. However, given the serious nature of his crimes, the High Court refused his application for a prohibition. McFarlane Appealed in February 2007. The Supreme Court heard the appeal January 2008. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal unanimously. The applicant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by the delay. Hence, there was no demonstration that there had been a breach of his constitutional right to a trial in due course of law. The types of delay that were considered by the court during the proceedings of this case: Prosecutorial delay and Systematic delay. "Prosecutorial delay" - Delay arising from the police investigating crimes tardily, or reporting the crime to the prosecuting authorities tardily. "Systematic delay" - Delay arising arising when the State fails to provide "adequate resources or facilities for the disposal of litigation". This type of delay may overlap with prosecutorial delay. This delay is really important because by failing to provide the necessary resources for trial, such as fingerprints analysis, the case would be hindered.