The High Court has quashed a Circuit Court judge’s decision to make no order in a prosecution involving two charges against a juvenile, ruling that the District Court had validly sent the case forward for trial on indictment.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2011, Mr Justice McMahon found that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had directed that the charges proceed on indictment. He declared that the Circuit Court should deal with the case on the existing return for trial.
The charges concern an alleged incident on 3 March 2006. They are a threat to kill or cause serious harm, contrary to section 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, and a threat to cause criminal damage, contrary to section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The judgment identifies the notice party as Christopher Dooley, also known as Christopher Smith.
The parties disputed what directions the DPP gave before the District Court considered the case. The notice party’s solicitor said the DPP left the jurisdiction decision to the Children’s Court judge, who then refused jurisdiction under section 75 of the Children Act 2001. The DPP’s solicitor and the prosecuting Garda said the DPP had directed trial on indictment and that this was conveyed to the District Court. The DPP’s account was that the court could decide whether, given the accused’s age, to retain the case for summary disposal.
The High Court resolved that dispute in the DPP’s favour. It relied on affidavits from the DPP’s solicitor and the Garda, District Court orders recording an election for trial on indictment, and the notice party’s account that the judge considered section 75. The judge reasoned that section 75’s discretion to deal with a child’s case summarily applied where indictable offences were before the court.
The ruling distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in Reade, which concerned a case the DPP had elected to prosecute summarily. The High Court concluded that Gormley applied instead: where the DPP directed a hybrid offence to proceed on indictment, the District Court could return the accused for trial. It held that the return made on 3 July 2007 was valid and that the Circuit Court judge had erred in refusing to hear the case on the basis of Reade.
The High Court granted certiorari quashing the 19 January 2010 decision and declared that the Circuit Court should proceed on the existing return for trial. It rejected the notice party’s submission that the DPP should have used an alternative remedy, such as re-entering the prosecution or bringing fresh proceedings. The judgment records the court’s view that uncertainty following Reade and Gormley warranted judicial review. It did not determine the accused’s guilt or the outcome of the charges.