The High Court has proposed an injunction stopping the prosecution of an applicant on two charges of assault causing harm, finding that culpable delay deprived him of significant protections available to children under the Children Act 2001.
Mr Justice Barr found that the investigation into the alleged assaults was not complex and could have been brought before the District Court before the applicant turned 18. He concluded that the delay was culpable, particularly because statements from a security guard and an independent witness were not taken until almost a year after the incident, without explanation.
The alleged incident took place at a Centra shop on La Touche Road in Bluebell, Dublin, on 22 May 2017. The applicant was 17. The judgment says he was alleged to have thrown a glass bottle at a security guard; it then struck a 69-year-old woman in the face, causing serious injuries. These are allegations, not findings following a criminal trial.
The applicant argued that delays meant he was charged only after turning 18 and lost the chance to have a District Court judge consider whether the charges could be dealt with summarily under section 75 of the Act. He also said he lost statutory anonymity and other protections. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that there had been no blameworthy delay and that the public interest in prosecuting serious charges outweighed any prejudice.
The court accepted that the seven-week wait before taking the injured woman’s statement was reasonable given her injuries and trauma. It also found no culpable delay in the period associated with the applicant’s failure to attend an arrest appointment, his later detention in an unrelated matter, and the process for obtaining a warrant. However, the court found unexplained inactivity after the woman’s statement and serious, unexplained delays in obtaining the other witness statements. It concluded that, with reasonable expedition, the case had a very good chance of reaching the District Court before the applicant’s 18th birthday.
The court found a reasonable prospect that a District Court judge would have accepted jurisdiction under section 75, though there was no guarantee. That lost opportunity was significant: the judgment contrasted a maximum one-year sentence in the District Court with a maximum five-year sentence on indictment in the Circuit Court. It also found the loss of statutory anonymity to be serious prejudice. The court considered the loss of statutory provisions on detention as a last resort and probation reports less prejudicial, because a sentencing court could still take account of age and maturity and could order a report.
Balancing the prejudice against the public interest in prosecuting serious allegations, the court concluded that the prejudice outweighed the public interest in continuing. It proposed an injunction restraining prosecution on both charges. The parties were given two weeks to make written submissions on the final order, costs and any other arising matters; the judgment does not state the terms of a final order.