The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the prosecution of an anonymised applicant accused of possessing diamorphine, cocaine and cannabis for sale or supply, finding no culpable prosecutorial delay.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 12 July 2024, Mr Justice Barr said it was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the balance of justice favoured allowing the prosecution to proceed. The court refused the reliefs sought. It directed the parties to make written submissions within two weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters, with the case listed for mention on 30 July 2024.
The alleged offences date to 21 October 2019, when the applicant was 17. Gardaí searched a property in Clondalkin, Dublin, and arrested him. The judgment records an officer’s allegations that the applicant discarded a rucksack containing suspected drugs and later produced further substances from his clothing. The applicant was accused of three counts under section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, as amended. These are allegations; the judicial review concerned delay, not whether the applicant committed the offences.
The applicant argued that delay caused him to reach adulthood before the investigation and prosecution steps were completed, costing him protections under the Children Act 2001. These included a possible jurisdiction hearing under section 75, anonymity, consideration of detention as a last resort and a probation and welfare report. The Director of Public Prosecutions disputed that there had been blameworthy delay.
The court excluded roughly three months when seized material was being analysed by Forensic Science Ireland, which it treated as an independent laboratory. It also considered the time taken to assess the applicant for the Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme. The judgment records conflicting accounts of a meeting between the applicant and a juvenile liaison officer: the officer said the applicant wanted the case to go to court, while the applicant said he did not understand that he was being offered a caution. The judge said it was unnecessary to resolve that dispute to decide the delay issue.
Justice Barr said the officer’s report was issued in October 2020, after the applicant had reached adulthood the previous month, and questioned why it had taken so long. But he was not satisfied that this amounted to delay warranting prohibition, or that an earlier report would have allowed the investigation and directions from the DPP to be completed before the applicant turned 18. Considering the investigation as a whole, including the seriousness of the alleged offences and the time available, he found no culpable prosecutorial delay.