The High Court refused Stephen McArdle’s application to stop criminal proceedings against him, finding that he had not shown a real risk of an unfair trial caused by delay.
The judicial review concerned two pending allegations of criminal damage and assault causing harm. The allegations arose from an incident on 3 February 2007, when McArdle, then 16, was accused of throwing a rock at a bus. A passenger was struck through a window and suffered a fractured skull. McArdle admitted throwing a rock at the bus in a cautioned interview but denied that it hit the window. The charges remained allegations; this judgment did not determine guilt.
Justice Hedigan said the state took eight months to decide the matter was unsuitable for the Juvenile Liaison Programme, and described that period as undesirable given the special duty to expedite cases involving children. The file went to the Director of Public Prosecutions in October 2007, with directions to charge McArdle the following month. Garda Shane Fitzsimons later located him, and he was charged in January 2008.
Psychiatric and psychological reports requested by the defence were prepared between January and October 2008. The court then issued seven bench warrants after McArdle failed to appear on remand dates between October 2008 and December 2009. The judge found that the greatest part of the delay was caused by McArdle and was not satisfied that the later delay in executing a warrant was attributable to the prosecution.
McArdle argued that the delay affected his ability to remember events and that the death of Paul Black deprived him of a potential defence witness. The judge said Black’s statement recorded that he heard the window smash but “did not see anything”; the court found it did not assist McArdle and considered its potential value dubious. Other claims about missing witnesses and memory were described as vague and unconvincing.
The judge also said a trial judge could warn the jury about McArdle’s age at the time of the alleged incident, and that a sentencing court would be expected to take that age into account if he were convicted. Finding no specific prejudice that created a real risk of an unfair trial, Justice Hedigan refused the relief sought. The judgment therefore left the pending criminal case to proceed in the criminal courts; it did not decide the charges.