The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application seeking to stop the prosecution of a man for two alleged offences said to have occurred when he was 16, despite finding culpable prosecutorial delay of about 22 months.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered judgment electronically on 26 May 2020. He found that the investigation and prosecution took too long and that the delay was unjustified. But after weighing the prejudice to the applicant against the public interest in prosecuting the charges, he concluded that the case should proceed.
The charges arise from an alleged incident on 11 June 2017 on a LUAS tram and a nearby platform. The prosecution alleges that the applicant robbed a person of a wallet and mobile phone and produced a knife while threatening him. The applicant was charged with robbery and producing an article capable of causing serious injury to intimidate someone. These remain allegations; the judgment does not determine guilt.
The judge said the investigation was straightforward, with witness statements and CCTV footage. Gardaí identified the applicant as a suspect within weeks, but charges were not brought until April 2019. The judgment identified delays at several stages, including a period when the investigation file could not be located. The applicant’s solicitor had also written in February 2019 urging that any prosecution be progressed before the applicant turned 18 on 12 April. The judge noted that a proposed opportunity to have the charges dealt with alongside an existing Circuit Court matter was not used.
Because the applicant had turned 18 before the charges were determined, he lost protections that apply to children under the Children Act 2001. The judge considered the loss of reporting restrictions under section 93 a significant disadvantage. He found the practical effect of losing child sentencing principles under section 96 was limited in this case, and that the loss of a mandatory probation report was not a serious detriment.
The judge said the charges were very serious, the applicant’s ability to defend himself had not been prejudiced, and he had made no admissions. He also found that the delay’s potential effect on rehabilitation carried less weight in light of the applicant’s detention during much of the period for unrelated offences. The balance of justice therefore favoured allowing the prosecution to continue.
The court declined to make a separate order restricting reports of the pending criminal proceedings. It dismissed the judicial review application. The parties were asked to correspond on costs and, if they could not agree, file short written submissions within 14 days.