By Tom Arden
The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of an indictment prosecution arising from an alleged assault in Bundoran, County Donegal, rejecting an argument that the Director of Public Prosecutions had to decide within six months how the case would be prosecuted.
Robert Robinson was charged following an incident on 20 June 1999. He was identified in September and contacted by gardaí in October. The file reached the DPP in January 2000. On 23 February 2000, the DPP directed that Robinson be tried on indictment for assault causing harm under section 3 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
Robinson argued that because the offence could be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment, the DPP had to make that choice within the six-month time limit applying to summary proceedings under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. He also claimed that the timing deprived him of a supposed right to have the case dealt with summarily and exposed him to a potentially heavier penalty.
Ms Justice Macken, delivering judgment, rejected those arguments and affirmed the High Court's decision.
The court held that section 3 permits prosecution by either route, but the six-month limit applies only where the DPP chooses summary prosecution. There was no express or implied requirement that a decision to prosecute on indictment be made within that period.
The court said a contrary interpretation could prevent prosecution of serious cases where an accused had not been identified, an injured witness was unavailable or other legitimate investigative difficulties lasted more than six months.
It also rejected Robinson's claim to a right to elect summary trial. The choice of prosecution route rested with the DPP, subject to the District Court's role where summary disposal was proposed.
There was no allegation of bad faith against the DPP, and the High Court had found valid reasons for proceeding on indictment. The Supreme Court dismissed Robinson's appeal and affirmed the High Court order.