The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application seeking to stop the prosecution of a man over four alleged offences said to have occurred when he was 16, despite finding blameworthy prosecutorial delay of more than two years.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as W, was charged on 17 December 2018 over an incident at Cloverhill courthouse on 22 November 2016. He is accused of attempting to escape custody, assaulting three gardaí and damaging a glass door panel. The charges are criminal damage, two counts of assault and one count of assault causing harm. They are to be dealt with summarily in the District Court, which accepted jurisdiction.
The judgment says the Garda investigation proceeded within about six months: W was interviewed, CCTV was obtained and his case was referred to the Garda Youth Diversion Office, which deemed him unsuitable for the programme. The delay arose afterwards. The original and reissued summonses were not served, and W was eventually charged directly while attending court on another matter. Garda Sergeant Sinéad Hennigan accepted that W had contact with gardaí during the period and that opportunities to progress the prosecution had been lost.
W’s application argued that timely prosecution would have allowed the charges to be heard under the Children Act 2001. He had turned 18 before he was charged, and therefore could not benefit from the Act’s child reporting restrictions, sentencing principles and mandatory probation report. The court considered the loss of reporting restrictions the principal prejudice. It found the other claimed losses were not significant on these facts, including because a sentencing court could take his age at the time of the alleged offences into account.
In weighing that prejudice against the public interest, the court cited the alleged courthouse escape attempt and assaults on three gardaí, the importance of safety and order at courthouses, and the absence of any claim that delay had impaired W’s ability to defend the charges. The judgment also noted that W denied allegations put to him in a 2017 interview. These remain allegations; the judicial review did not determine guilt.
The court dismissed the application, allowing the prosecution to proceed. It declined to make an order restricting reports of hearings on the four charges. The parties were asked to correspond on costs; if they could not agree, written submissions were to be filed within 28 days.