The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by the prosecution, overturning a High Court order that restrained the trial of John Devoy on charges arising from an alleged shotgun attack in Ballymun. The decision means the trial may proceed; the Supreme Court did not decide the criminal charges themselves.
The charges concern an incident alleged to have happened on 17 October 2001 at Balbutcher Drive, Ballymun, Dublin. The judgment says Devoy was accused of firing a shotgun at the sitting-room window of an occupied house. He was arrested the following day and charged with firearm and ammunition offences and criminal damage. The court recorded that he had made a full confession shortly after arrest, but he continued to assert that he was not guilty. The Supreme Court did not determine the statement’s admissibility or the charges.
The prosecution’s case was delayed at several stages. The charges were struck out in September 2002 after a Book of Evidence was not served, then re-entered in June 2003. A trial date set for March 2004 was vacated after a defect was found in the District Court order returning Devoy for trial. The order was later quashed by the High Court, and the charges were re-entered and returned for trial again. The proposed trial date became 6 February 2006.
The High Court prohibited further steps in the prosecution, finding the explanations for key delays unacceptable. On appeal, the prosecution accepted that approximately 16 months of delay was blameworthy and inadequately explained. The Supreme Court agreed that this delay was significant and required a balancing exercise.
In its judgment delivered on 7 April 2008, the Supreme Court considered the community’s interest in prosecuting a serious alleged firearms offence alongside Devoy’s right to a trial with reasonable expedition. It noted that he had not shown actual prejudice to his defence, had not sought an early trial, and could not rely on time spent in custody that resulted from his breach of bail conditions. It also treated the confession, which had not been challenged for accuracy or admissibility in the proceedings before it, as relevant to the balance.
The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured allowing the trial to proceed and allowed the prosecution’s appeal. Its ruling addressed whether delay justified prohibiting the trial; it did not resolve guilt or innocence.