The High Court has quashed a District Court decision refusing jurisdiction over a charge against Seán Thackaberry of failing to comply with sex offender notification requirements. The case has been remitted to a different District Judge for fresh consideration.
Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled that, when deciding whether the alleged offence was suitable for summary trial, the District Judge should have considered the offence actually charged and its alleged circumstances. The judge was not entitled to enquire into the details of the earlier sexual offence that made Mr Thackaberry subject to the notification requirements.
The charge was brought under section 12 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001, which provides for an offence where a person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with specified notification duties. The DPP had directed summary disposal. At a jurisdiction hearing on 26 February 2020, a garda sergeant outlined the earlier offence: an aggravated sexual assault conviction in the Central Criminal Court in 2013, for which the sergeant said Mr Thackaberry received a sentence of seven and a half years.
After hearing those details, the District Judge refused jurisdiction, describing the allegation as “not a minor allegation”. The High Court noted that the District Judge had not expressly considered the details of the alleged failure to comply before reaching that decision.
Mr Thackaberry sought to have the refusal quashed and the matter reconsidered. The High Court rejected the DPP’s submission that granting that relief would usurp the District Judge’s jurisdiction: a decision-maker sent a matter back for fresh consideration remains free to reach any lawful decision.
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court relied on authorities concerning the presumption of innocence and the assessment of whether an offence is minor. It held that the earlier offence was not an ingredient that needed to be established at the jurisdiction stage. The court also noted that the DPP could withhold consent to summary trial if the case should proceed on indictment.
The court quashed the District Judge’s refusal and remitted the matter to a different District Judge. It did not decide whether the charge should ultimately be tried summarily or on indictment. The DPP remains free to decide that the prosecution should proceed on indictment.