The Supreme Court dismissed John Carlin’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to halt his prosecution for assault causing harm. It affirmed the High Court order, finding that he had not established a ground for appeal.
The charge concerns an alleged assault on Paul McGeady in Letterkenny on 30 June 2001. Carlin was charged that July and released on station bail, but did not attend District Court in October because he was serving a sentence imposed by Belfast Crown Court. A bench warrant followed.
In November 2003, the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that Carlin not be prosecuted, and that decision was conveyed to him. The bench warrant was cancelled. After receiving representations on behalf of the injured party and hearing concerns from the complainant’s family, the Director reviewed the decision and directed in April 2004 that the prosecution proceed.
A European Arrest Warrant was endorsed by the High Court in November 2005. Carlin was arrested in Northern Ireland in May 2006 and surrendered to Ireland later that month. He challenged the renewed prosecution, arguing that the Director had acted unfairly by reversing the earlier decision without warning him that it could be reviewed. He also relied on delay and said photographs of the injured party had gone missing.
The Supreme Court considered the principles in *Eviston v Director of Public Prosecutions*, under which the Director may review and reverse a decision not to prosecute, including without new evidence, while remaining subject to constitutional requirements of fairness. The court said the decisive feature in *Eviston* was evidence that the reversal had added an unnecessary layer of anxiety and stress. It found Carlin’s affidavit did not show stress beyond the ordinary distress associated with facing criminal proceedings. The court also said the Director had no specific obligation to warn that a no-prosecution decision might be reviewed.
On delay, the court accepted there had been a significant period between the April 2004 decision to revive the prosecution and the November 2005 endorsement of the warrant, which had been partly explained. It found no meaningful attempt to connect the missing photographs to Carlin’s defence and held that delay did not assist him without evidence of prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court order affirmed. The Supreme Court did not halt the prosecution; the judgment addressed Carlin’s application for prohibition and appeal from the refusal of that relief.