The High Court refused an application to stop an armed robbery prosecution, finding at least 11 months of culpable delay but concluding that the prejudice to the applicant did not outweigh the public interest in a trial.
Patrick Smyth sought judicial review to restrain the Director of Public Prosecutions from proceeding with his trial. He argued that the delay in charging him meant he faced trial as an adult rather than as a juvenile. Leave to seek judicial review had been granted in July 2013.
Smyth was nearly 17 when he allegedly took part in the betting shop robbery with an adult man on 13 January 2012. The robbery was captured on CCTV. After his arrest on 26 January, Smyth admitted his role in an interview attended by a responsible adult and identified himself in the footage. The judgment said he had never withdrawn that admission. He was charged on 15 April 2013, after turning 18.
The court rejected the DPP’s submission that there had been no prosecutorial delay. It considered a delay of more than about three months after the admission unreasonable. It found that the explanations offered for investigative delay—including obtaining CCTV, taking witness statements, conducting a technical examination and carrying out door-to-door inquiries—did not justify the time taken. The file was not sent to the DPP until 16 July 2012, and the court found five months of culpable delay before then. It found at least a further six months unexplained delay in the DPP’s office, making at least 11 months in total.
The judge found no deliberate conspiracy to delay the charge until Smyth became an adult. The court accepted that he had lost the right to anonymity and the automatic statutory right to a probation report. It did not consider the loss of the juvenile rule that custody should be a last resort a real prejudice in his circumstances, given his criminal record and the seriousness of the allegation. It also found he would probably have faced the matter as a serious offence even if charged as a juvenile.
Applying the balancing approach set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in Donoghue, the judge considered the seriousness of the armed robbery allegation, Smyth’s record and the prejudice he had suffered. The court held that the loss of anonymity and automatic probation report, though genuine prejudice, was insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the serious charges proceeding. It therefore refused the relief sought; the judgment did not halt the prosecution.