The High Court ruled that a District Court judge may convict either or both of two applicants on violent disorder charges even though a third accused’s charge was withdrawn, provided the judge is satisfied that all three were involved in the unlawful violence.
Mr Justice Hedigan gave the ruling on 19 May 2010 in a consultative case stated from Castlebar District Court. The District Judge had referred the legal question before reaching a final decision on the complaints against Keith Ring and Shannon Keohane. The High Court answered the question about the court’s power; it did not decide whether either applicant was guilty.
The three accused had originally been charged over an incident at a Tesco car park in Castlebar on 8 June 2008. On 4 March 2009, the prosecution withdrew the summons against the third accused, Adrian Ring, after the court was told he was a minor and his parents or guardian had not also been summonsed. The High Court noted that he had not been acquitted and that no finding had been made on whether he took part in unlawful violence.
The District Judge’s case stated recorded evidence from witnesses and CCTV footage indicating more than two people were involved in the dispute. Witness accounts described violence involving the applicants and the minor, as well as an alleged assault on a security guard. Those were evidential accounts before the District Court, not findings by the High Court.
The applicants argued that the offence required three or more people to be prosecuted or convicted, and that their summonses named only the three accused. The prosecution submitted that a conviction did not require the other two participants to be convicted, so long as the evidence established that at least three people had engaged in unlawful violence.
Drawing on English decisions interpreting a similar offence, Mr Justice Hedigan said a person acquitted after a finding that they did not participate in the violence could not be counted towards the required three. But a person whose charge was withdrawn for a procedural defect had not thereby been found not to have participated. The court said an unnamed participant could also count if there was evidence of that person’s involvement and the accused had not been unfairly prejudiced by lack of notice of the case they had to meet.
Applying those principles, the High Court held that the District Judge could convict either or both applicants if satisfied on the evidence that they and the minor were involved in violent disorder. The District Court complaints remained for determination after the High Court’s opinion.