The High Court has refused an application to stop the prosecution of a man charged over an alleged assault causing harm, despite finding that the investigation and prosecution were affected by blameworthy delay while he was a child.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 29 May 2024 that the delay breached the special duty of expedition applying to cases involving children. But he found that the only prejudice established was the loss of the opportunity to use reporting restrictions under the Children Act 2001. That prejudice was outweighed by the public interest in having the serious allegations heard by a trial court.
The applicant is charged with assault causing harm and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury during a dispute or fight. The judgment’s account of the allegations, drawn from the book of evidence, is not a finding of fact. It says the incident allegedly took place at Newbridge train station on 31 January 2020, after a verbal altercation involving the applicant, two other teenagers and two adult men. One man was reported to have suffered cuts to his abdomen and limbs. The applicant retains the presumption of innocence.
The court described the case as not especially complex. It found that the authorities had identified the applicant shortly after the incident, but that there were unexplained delays in the investigation, the juvenile diversion process and the handling of the file by the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office. The applicant reached 18 in June 2022 before the file was sent to the DPP’s office in July 2022. He was charged in September 2023, about three years and seven months after the alleged incident.
The applicant argued that timely proceedings could have allowed him to be dealt with under the Children Act, including its reporting restrictions. The judge concluded that the loss of anonymity was the only material prejudice established. He found no material prejudice from the loss of a mandatory probation report or child-specific sentencing provisions, and considered it unlikely that the District Court would have accepted jurisdiction to deal with the charges summarily on the evidence then available. The judge stressed that this was not a finding about guilt or what sentence might follow a conviction.
In weighing the prejudice against the public interest, the judge took account of the seriousness of the allegations and the applicant’s existing conviction for a separate adult drug offence. He said the alleged assault’s seriousness and possible hostility towards the victim’s sexual orientation were allegations to be tested at trial.
The court therefore declined to prohibit the prosecution. It listed the case for submissions on the final form of the order and legal costs on 31 May 2024. The judge’s provisional view was that the DPP should recover costs, subject to the applicant’s position under the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme.