The High Court dismissed an application for leave to challenge the prosecution of a young man over alleged offences committed when he was 17, finding the application was out of time and the proposed grounds were not arguable. It made permanent an order barring publication of material tending to identify him.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as M. McD., was alleged to have possessed cannabis and a knife on 7 January 2014. Gardaí referred his case to the Juvenile Diversion Programme, but he was deemed unsuitable. Summonses were first issued in May 2014, returned unserved in March 2015 after reported difficulties with his name and addresses, and reissued in May 2015. His solicitor said they were served on 2 August 2015, after he had turned 18.
The applicant argued that delay meant he was being prosecuted as an adult for conduct alleged to have occurred while he was a child. Justice Richard Humphreys said the judicial review application was filed on 18 December 2015, more than three months after the applicant learned of the prosecution. No extension of time had been sought. The judge said he would have refused an extension in any event, citing the lack of an adequate explanation, the effect on the prosecution and others, and the fact that the complaint itself concerned delay.
The judge also concluded that the claim did not meet the threshold for leave. The applicant was 17 years and four months old at the time of the alleged incident and, even if summonses had been served as soon as they were issued, their return date would have fallen after his 18th birthday. The judgment said the special duty on the State to ensure a speedy process for children did not, by itself, justify stopping a trial.
The applicant raised four alleged disadvantages from being prosecuted after turning 18, including loss of anonymity, diversion consideration, restrictions on detention and eventual non-disclosure of a conviction. The judge said the District Court could protect his identity; he had already been considered for diversion; the trial court could apply a fair sentencing approach, with appeal and judicial review available; and the statutory provision on non-disclosure could apply even if trial and conviction occurred after he turned 18.
The ruling concerned leave to bring judicial review, not the applicant’s guilt or the outcome of the criminal case. The court ordered that the identity-protection order under section 45 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 be made permanent, struck Judge David Kennedy from the proceedings as notice party, and dismissed the application for leave.