The Supreme Court has quashed the acquittals of J.B. and S.M. and directed a retrial over the 2021 shooting of a teenager on a street near Dublin city centre.
In a judgment delivered on 11 March 2025, Mr Justice Brian Murray said the retrial was appropriate and in the interests of justice. The Court had already held that the trial judge erred in law by directing the jury to acquit the appellants. It now considered whether a retrial should follow, as the Director of Public Prosecutions sought under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010.
The charges arose from an attack in which an automatic firearm was discharged and the teenager, identified as AB, was seriously injured. The judgment says evidence at trial was that AB would have died without urgent medical intervention. Members of the public were nearby.
The trial judge had ruled at the close of the prosecution case that there was insufficient evidence for the charges to go to the jury. The Supreme Court later concluded that she had failed to account for the potential effect of statutory inferences arising from Garda interviews. It said the evidence was such that a jury might reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellants’ guilt. That was the legal threshold for the appeal; it was not a finding that either appellant was guilty.
In deciding whether to order a retrial, the Court considered whether a fair trial remained possible, the time elapsed, victims’ interests and other relevant circumstances. The prosecution said a fair retrial could be held, relying on CCTV, Garda interviews, forensic evidence and limited direct witness testimony. The appellants did not seriously dispute that fairness was possible. They argued that the passage of time and the prospect of proceedings continuing into 2025 weighed against a retrial. The Court found the delay was not inordinate and no specific prejudice to either defence had been identified.
The appellants also pointed to AB’s lack of cooperation and lack of recollection at the first trial, and the absence of evidence from him in the appeal. The Court said a victim’s willingness to cooperate can matter, but the victim’s interests also include the seriousness of the alleged injuries and the circumstances of the offence. It added that the impact on innocent bystanders, including two who testified at trial, had to be considered.
The Court acknowledged that J.B. had spent two years in custody awaiting trial and that the case had disrupted his life. It concluded, however, that the seriousness and public setting of the alleged attack, the evidence threshold already found to be met, the absence of identified prejudice and the time elapsed supported a retrial.
The order requires a new trial of both accused. It does not resolve the charges or establish their guilt.