The High Court has refused to stop prosecutions against four men over an alleged disturbance at Oberstown Children’s Detention Campus in Lusk, despite finding that part of the Garda investigation was subject to blameworthy delay.
Michael Ward, Darren Foley, Philip McCabe and Luke Cronin face criminal damage charges arising from events on 20 and 21 September 2016, when all four were minors detained at Oberstown.
According to Garda evidence summarised in the judgment, it is alleged that the unit was ransacked, doors and equipment were smashed and makeshift weapons were used. Staff reported fearing for their safety and some reported injuries. These remain allegations and the criminal charges have not yet been determined.
The investigation began immediately, but the High Court found an unjustified period of inactivity after the original investigating Garda retired in April 2017. Garda John Delaney accepted that no substantial progress was made between May 2017 and March 2018. The court therefore found blameworthy prosecutorial delay.
That finding did not automatically end the prosecutions. Mr Justice Meenan had to balance the delay against the public interest and any additional prejudice suffered by the applicants because they would now be tried as adults rather than children.
The applicants relied on safeguards under the Children Act 2001, including reporting restrictions, special sentencing principles, mandatory probation reports and the possibility of summary trial in some circumstances.
The judge assessed each applicant separately. Ward’s identifiable loss was principally reporting restrictions. Foley, McCabe and Cronin were already close enough to their 18th birthdays that the court considered it unlikely their investigations and court proceedings could realistically have concluded while they were still children.
None of the applicants claimed that the delay had impaired their ability to defend the charges. Given the seriousness of the alleged disturbance at a detention centre and the public interest in maintaining order there, the court held that the balance of justice favoured allowing all four prosecutions to continue.
The applications for prohibition and declarations of invalidity were refused. Costs were left for later submissions.