The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of a man charged with assault causing harm, despite finding limited culpable prosecutorial delay in the case.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 20 June 2018 in judicial review proceedings brought by an applicant identified as SW. The charge alleges that, on 14 March 2014, when the applicant was 15, he assaulted a person in Dublin 2, causing harm. The allegation has not been determined at trial.
The applicant argued that delays by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Gardaí had prejudiced his ability to contest the charge and created a serious risk that his trial would be unfair. He sought an order prohibiting further prosecution, along with interim or interlocutory relief preventing the case from proceeding.
The court identified several periods without a good explanation, including delays in passing information between Gardaí, taking a statement from the complainant and progressing a juvenile suitability report. It concluded that the delays amounted cumulatively to culpable prosecutorial delay, but described the delay as limited in duration.
The judge said he could see no identifiable prejudice to the applicant. He noted that the applicant had been under 18 when charged and when the Children Court accepted jurisdiction, and that a District Court judge had made an order prohibiting publication of his identity. The High Court also considered that the applicant’s age at the time of the alleged offence could be taken into account if he were convicted or pleaded guilty.
In refusing prohibition, the court weighed the delay against other factors, including the public interest in prosecuting serious offences, the absence of identifiable prejudice and the court’s view that the evidence was compelling. The judgment referred to CCTV footage and an uncontested admission. These were matters considered in deciding the judicial review application; the High Court did not determine guilt.
The court said that, because prohibition was refused, the requested injunction or stay was redundant. The application was determined save for any application for costs. The judgment does not record a final determination of the underlying criminal charge.