The High Court has directed that the prosecution of an applicant for an alleged assault committed when he was 15 be prohibited, after finding that unexplained delays caused him significant prejudice by depriving him of anonymity and other protections for minors.
Mr Justice Barr found that the investigation into the alleged assault was straightforward and that key evidence, including CCTV, the applicant’s admissions and a statement from the injured shopworker, had been obtained within days of the incident at a Londis shop in Maynooth on 23 July 2019. The applicant was 15 years and 10 months old at the time.
The court found an eight-month delay before a referral to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme was created, followed by a further seven-month delay before the file was submitted for directions. It described both periods as inordinate and inexcusable, and said the respondent had offered no credible explanation. The applicant turned 18 in September 2021; the book of evidence was served the following month.
The applicant sought judicial review to stop the prosecution, arguing that the delay meant he had “aged out” of protections available under the Children Act 2001. The respondent accepted there had been periods of delay but argued they were not enough to justify halting the case. It also relied on the seriousness of the alleged assault and the injuries described by the shopworker.
The judge said the allegation was serious, but concluded that the prejudice from the loss of anonymity and the mandatory nature of certain protections outweighed the public interest in continuing the prosecution. He noted that reporting of criminal proceedings online could remain searchable indefinitely and affect the young man’s future employment. Some protections might still be available at sentencing at a judge’s discretion, but their loss as mandatory entitlements was itself prejudicial.
The judgment does not determine whether the applicant committed the alleged assault or resolve conflicts in the evidence. The court directed that the future prosecution on charges arising from the incident be prohibited. It invited written submissions on the wording of the final order, costs and other matters, and listed the case for mention on 15 June 2023. The judgment does not state the final terms of the order or the outcome on costs.