The High Court has refused a teenager’s application to quash a six-month detention order, finding that the Circuit Court acted within its jurisdiction when it affirmed the District Court order after he failed to attend or prosecute his appeal.
In a judgment delivered on 9 December 2016, Ms Justice Faherty denied the relief sought by Luke Byrne in judicial review proceedings against Judge James O’Donohoe and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The application challenged what happened at Dublin Circuit Court on 11 November 2014, where Byrne’s appeal against sentence was struck out and the District Court order affirmed.
Byrne was 15 when he handled stolen cosmetics vouchers on the Naas Road in September 2012. He pleaded guilty. The District Court later imposed a six-month detention order, which was initially deferred. The probation material before that court referred to ADHD, borderline cognitive ability and difficult family circumstances, alongside missed appointments and other concerns.
Byrne appealed the sentence. His appeal was listed for 16 October 2014, when neither he nor his mother attended; his counsel obtained an adjournment to 11 November. The judge directed gardaí to caution Byrne about the new date, and a prosecuting garda said he did so at Byrne’s home on 6 November. Byrne and his mother were again absent on the adjourned date, but counsel was present. According to an affidavit from the prosecuting garda, counsel did not seek an adjournment, explain Byrne’s absence or object when the judge said, “Ok, affirm District Court order”. The judgment records no affidavit contradicting that account.
Byrne argued that the Circuit Court should have considered his age and the Children Act 2001 safeguards, including requirements concerning probation reports and an opportunity for a parent or adult relative to give evidence. The State argued that the appeal had not been prosecuted and that there had been no decision on its merits requiring those safeguards to be applied.
Justice Faherty accepted that the Children Act sets mandatory requirements for courts dealing with children, including obtaining a probation report before imposing a relevant sentence. But she concluded that the Circuit Court had not entertained the appeal on its merits: Byrne did not attend, and his counsel made no active attempt to prosecute it or seek an adjournment. In those circumstances, the judge was not required to obtain or consider a probation report or to hear an adult relative before affirming the District Court order.
The High Court denied the relief claimed. It did not quash the detention order.