The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the prosecution of a man charged with assault causing harm after he turned 18. The court found no blameworthy delay in the case, which arose from an incident when he was 17.
The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the delay between the incident and the charge deprived him of protections available under the Children Act, 2001. These included the possibility of a summary hearing under section 75, anonymity and child-specific sentencing provisions. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, saying the case required assessment for the Diversion Programme and further investigation of the applicant’s role.
The incident took place in a shop on 7 June 2013. The judgment says the injured party was allegedly stabbed by the applicant’s co-accused and suffered a collapsed lung. The applicant pursued and punched the injured party, an act captured on CCTV. During an interview, the applicant admitted punching him but said he had not known the co-accused had a knife or used it in the assault.
The DPP’s office received the file in August 2013 and requested CCTV footage and a Juvenile Liaison Officer certificate. In October, it preliminarily directed that the applicant face a summary assault charge, pending the officer’s views and further information from the injured party. The officer found him unsuitable for the Diversion Programme in November. A summons for the summary offence was issued in December, returnable on 3 April 2014.
After the injured party provided a further statement in February 2014, the DPP directed in March that the applicant be charged with assault causing harm, an indictable offence. He was charged on the summons return date, one month after his 18th birthday, and remanded for service of a book of evidence.
The applicant argued that the case should have reached the Children’s Court earlier, allowing it to progress while he was still a child. The court said the prosecution’s consideration of the diversion process and the applicant’s complicity took time, but found the relevant officials had not delayed and further investigation was reasonable. It also said the proposed alternative procedure was unclear and made no finding that the summons return date had been deliberately or negligently delayed.
Justice Iseult O’Malley concluded that the special duty to ensure a speedy trial for young people does not mean a person must always be dealt with before turning 18. Finding no blameworthy delay, she refused the relief sought. The judgment does not determine the applicant’s guilt or the outcome of the criminal prosecution.