The High Court has refused Petru Pauletti’s application to prohibit his prosecution in the District Court, finding that delay did not breach his right to a trial with due expedition and had not created an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.
Pauletti faces a summary charge under section 13(1) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1964. The allegation is that he trespassed in a gated development in Ballsbridge in circumstances that caused, or were likely to cause, fear. Residents said he peered through windows in the early hours of 15 May 2018. Two women living at one property said they were terrified. The judgment also records an allegation of similar behaviour the previous morning. These are allegations for the District Court to determine; the High Court made no finding of guilt.
The court found no unreasonable delay before the charge. It also rejected Pauletti’s challenge to service of the summons, which had been left at the Dublin 3 address he gave when arrested. He did not appear on the return date in December 2018, and a bench warrant was issued. The warrant was executed in May 2019. The judge said there was not enough evidence to determine whether the five-month interval involved culpable delay.
After Pauletti entered a not-guilty plea in February 2020, his trial date was postponed amid pandemic-related block adjournments. The court attributed about two years of delay to the pandemic and found no basis to say the case should have been prioritised. It did find that the prosecuting garda’s illness and the absence of a colleague to handle disclosure caused about three to four months of delay. That limited period was insufficient to trigger the balancing test for prohibiting a trial on delay grounds.
The judge also rejected the claim that the passage of time made a fair trial impossible. Witnesses had made statements within months of the alleged incident, and CCTV footage was expected to form part of the prosecution evidence. A claim that an alleged former girlfriend could assist the defence was raised in submissions without supporting evidence; the judge found no demonstrated specific prejudice. The District Court judge could address any reliability concerns arising from faded memories during the trial.
Justice Stack refused the reliefs sought. The High Court did not determine the charge; it left the matter for trial in the District Court.