The High Court has refused applications to prohibit two prosecutions of a person who was a minor when the alleged offences occurred, despite finding culpable prosecutorial delay in both cases.
In a judgment delivered on 1 December 2023, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley found that delays in obtaining forensic analysis amounted to blameworthy delay. But he concluded that the loss of protections available under the Children Act 2001 did not outweigh the public interest in prosecuting the serious alleged offences. Final orders were made on 19 December 2023.
The applicant, anonymised as L.W., brought judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions in two cases. In the first, the alleged offences arose from drug seizures at Foxdene Avenue and the applicant’s residence at 31 Méile an Rí Road, Lucan, on 21 May 2018. The applicant was 16 at the time. The judgment records that the charges included an alleged section 15A offence, and that the drugs seized were later given an estimated cumulative street value of about €43,178.38.
The court found culpable delay in the period from the alleged offences to the submission of the investigation file to the DPP in March 2019. It noted that the only investigative steps identified during the first ten months were a statement taken in June 2018 and reminder requests to Forensic Science Ireland in January and February 2019 for an outstanding certificate of analysis. The certificate was received on 26 February 2019.
In the second case, the alleged offences related to cocaine packages reportedly seen at Collinstown Park, Clondalkin, on 10 September 2018. The applicant disputed being stopped by gardaí, and there were no admissions. The court found one instance of culpable delay in the period between the substances being sent for analysis in December 2018 and the certificate being received in October 2019, noting that the investigation file had been returned in January because the certificate was missing.
The applicant argued that aging out of the Children Act’s protections caused prejudice, including loss of anonymity and child-specific sentencing safeguards. The judge held that the Circuit Criminal Court could take account of the applicant’s age and maturity, and consider whether a probation report or detention was appropriate. In both cases, the Children’s Court had also held and refused a hearing under section 75 of the Act on whether the charges could be dealt with summarily.
The court refused prohibition and injunctions in both cases. By agreement, the applicant’s name was to remain anonymised, and there was no order as to costs in either case. The court also recommended that the Legal Aid – Custody Issues Scheme apply to the applicant’s representation in one of the judicial review applications.