The High Court has refused to prohibit the prosecution of BM on an arson charge, finding that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not breach fair procedures by reversing an earlier decision to discontinue the case.
In a judgment delivered on 14 May 2021, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland said the decision to re-charge BM was not unfair in the circumstances. She noted that an accused person, properly advised by a solicitor, should understand that a decision to discontinue a prosecution may be reversed. The evidence also did not establish particular prejudice, additional stress or anxiety caused by the reversal, or harm to BM’s defence.
The arson charge arose from an incident on 27 July 2018. BM was accused of causing criminal damage by fire to a dwelling where his partner and two-year-old son lived. The judgment says BM made admissions about certain matters while in Garda custody; it does not set out their content.
The charge was struck out in the District Court on 19 March 2019 after the court was told the DPP had directed its withdrawal. Following a request from a person treated as a victim under the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017, the DPP reviewed the decision. On 27 June 2019, the DPP approved a recommendation to reverse it and also to add a knife-possession charge. BM was informed on 26 September that the arson case would proceed on indictment.
The judgment records that BM was initially sent forward for trial on three charges: arson, damage to a Garda station cell, and possession of a knife. The cell-damage charge was later dropped, and the judicial review hearing sought an order prohibiting prosecution only on the arson charge. The court did not decide whether the 2017 Act entitled a victim to seek review of a decision to discontinue a prosecution; it said that question was unnecessary to resolve the case.
Justice Hyland criticised the unexplained two-month delay between the DPP’s July decision and informing BM in September, saying he should have been told promptly. But she found no evidence that the delay caused specific prejudice. She also said the evidence did not show how the reversal had worsened BM’s mental-health difficulties, which the judgment said predated it. A medical report referred to depression, anxiety and paranoid ideation, but was based on a consultation in 2017.
Taking the circumstances together, the judge refused the reliefs sought. The ruling addresses whether the prosecution could proceed consistently with fair procedures; it does not determine the arson allegation itself.