The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application seeking to halt a criminal prosecution over an alleged assault causing harm during a road incident. Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 21 December 2023 that the applicant had not established blameworthy prosecutorial delay and that the balance of justice favoured allowing the prosecution to proceed.
The applicant is charged with assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997. The alleged incident occurred on 25 February 2019 and involved an altercation between two drivers. Each driver alleged that the other assaulted him. The alleged victim said the applicant head-butted him and struck him with a closed fist. Medical records disclosed in the criminal case recorded a broken nose said to be likely to have resulted from blunt trauma. These remain allegations; the criminal charge has not been determined.
The applicant gave a voluntary statement to gardaí on the day of the incident. Investigators first contacted him in September 2019, after identifying him through the insurance policy for the vehicle he had been driving. He declined a requested cautioned interview. He was arrested and interviewed under caution in May 2020, charged in August that year, and granted bail. A copy of his original statement was disclosed to his solicitor in January 2021, after he had sought it since September 2019.
The District Court trial was adjourned three times. In November 2021, it was adjourned to allow the defence time to summon a garda whose evidence it sought. The January and July 2022 dates were adjourned after the investigating garda contracted Covid-19. On 25 July 2022, the District Court refused the applicant’s request to dismiss the case for delay and listed it for a peremptory hearing on 12 September. The judicial review proceedings intervened, so that trial did not go ahead.
Justice Simons said the investigation and prosecution had taken about three and a half years to reach the scheduled trial date. He found that period did not amount to blameworthy prosecutorial delay, citing the pandemic, the applicant’s decision not to attend an interview voluntarily, and the case’s procedural history. He also found no real and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial or presumptive prejudice. The applicant had relied on concerns about fading memories and the absence of CCTV, but had identified no specific prejudice to his ability to defend the case.
Although the judge said it was not strictly necessary to conduct the balancing exercise after finding no blameworthy delay, he did so for completeness. He concluded that the public interest in having the serious charge determined on its merits outweighed the applicant’s right to an expeditious trial. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The judge’s provisional view was that the Director of Public Prosecutions was entitled to legal costs; either party could seek a different order by contacting the registrar before 15 January 2024 and arranging a relisting.