The High Court has dismissed a 17-year-old’s application to stop his prosecution over an alleged disturbance at Oberstown Children Detention Campus, finding that the Garda investigation was carried out with reasonable expedition. The court also made a temporary order restricting publication of information that could identify him.
The four charges arise from events at Oberstown on 29 August 2016. The judgment says it is alleged that the applicant and other detainees gained unauthorised access to a roof, removed tiles and started a fire. He also faces an alleged public order offence. These remain allegations; the judicial review concerned whether the prosecution could proceed, not whether he committed the offences.
The applicant argued that prosecutorial delay meant the charges could not be heard while he was still a child under the Children Act 2001. He said this deprived him of statutory protections including reporting restrictions, child-specific sentencing principles and a mandatory probation report. His solicitor had sought expedition, and the applicant had been arrested and interviewed in January 2017, when he made admissions, according to the judgment.
The DPP opposed the application. Garda evidence described an investigation involving at least eight suspects, more than 230 witness statements, about 280 hours of CCTV and over 130 lines of enquiry. The applicant’s interview admissions did not resolve the extent of his alleged involvement, including in the fire, the court said.
Justice Garrett Simons found no culpable or blameworthy prosecutorial delay during the year between the alleged incident and the applicant turning 18. He considered the investigation’s complexity and volume of evidence, and concluded that investigators acted with reasonable expedition. The court therefore said a balancing exercise was not strictly necessary.
The judge nevertheless carried out that exercise in case his delay finding was wrong. He concluded that the public interest in prosecuting serious alleged offences at a children’s detention centre outweighed the prejudice shown. In particular, he found the loss of reporting restrictions was the applicant’s principal prejudice; he did not consider the other claimed losses significant on these facts.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. The temporary identity-protection order bars reference to the applicant’s name, address or general area of origin. It allows reference to his detention at Oberstown and the events of 29 August 2016. The order is due to lapse 28 days after the High Court order is perfected unless an appeal or application for leave to appeal is filed; if an appeal is filed, it remains until set aside or the appeal is dismissed.