The High Court has refused three applications to stop criminal prosecutions over alleged offences against a teenage girl, despite finding blameworthy prosecutorial delay. It directed that the prosecutions proceed subject to reporting restrictions protecting the complainant and all five accused.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said about two years and three months elapsed between the complainant’s report to gardaí and the charges in May 2022. The three applicants had been under 18 when the alleged offences occurred in June 2019, but had reached adulthood before being charged. The court found the delay breached the special duty to pursue cases involving child suspects with reasonable expedition.
The judge said the Director of Public Prosecutions had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay. He identified unexplained gaps in interviewing the complainant and the applicants, preparing the investigation file, obtaining directions from the DPP and bringing charges. General references to pandemic restrictions, workload, data-protection issues and medical records did not explain how those matters affected this investigation.
The proceedings concerned allegations arising from an incident at a building off a secondary-school campus. The judgment said the first and second applicants were charged with sexual assault and the third with false imprisonment. It also described charges against two other individuals. The High Court stressed that its summary of the allegations was not a finding of fact and that all accused are presumed innocent.
The applicants argued that delay deprived them of protections under the Children Act 2001, including anonymity, a chance for the District Court to hear the charges summarily, more favourable child sentencing principles and a mandatory probation report. The judge found that only the lost opportunity for statutory anonymity represented potential prejudice. On the material before him, he was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the District Court would likely have accepted jurisdiction for a summary hearing. The alleged offences were serious, but that assessment was preliminary and made no finding about guilt or any eventual sentence. The loss of a mandatory probation report and child-specific sentencing rules was not materially prejudicial, the court said, because a sentencing court would still have to consider the applicants’ ages and maturity at the time of the alleged offences.
The judge concluded that the potential harm from losing anonymity could be addressed without prohibiting the prosecutions. His order bars publication of names, addresses, former school or other details likely to identify the complainant or any of the five accused, including identifying images. The restrictions also cover the judicial-review proceedings; the judgment may be reported so long as no identifying detail is added. The court did not limit the Circuit Court’s sentencing powers. The final form of the order and costs remained for submissions listed for 14 March 2024.