The High Court has refused the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application to overturn a District Court order striking out a sexual assault complaint after the accused pleaded guilty and €1,500 was offered for charity.
In a judgment delivered on 19 July 2011, President of the High Court Kearns said the District Court judge had discretion to use the court poor box in the exceptional circumstances of this case. He also said the DPP should have used an available appeal route rather than judicial review.
The complaint concerned an incident at a 30th birthday party in Dublin on 12 April 2009. The judgment says the complainant had gone to bed and fallen asleep. She later became aware of someone beside her, with a hand in her underwear, but assumed it was her fiancé and returned to sleep. Her brother found the accused beside her and alerted others, who removed him from the room.
The accused initially denied the allegation when questioned by gardaí, but pleaded guilty at an early stage when charged. The District Court heard the prosecution facts and later ordered a victim impact statement and probation report. On 16 November 2010, the court was told the accused had brought €1,500 for compensation. The complainant did not want the money and said it could go to charity. The judge accepted it for that purpose, with €500 paid into court immediately and the balance to follow, then struck out the charge.
The DPP argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to strike out a charge after a guilty plea and conviction, and that the order was contradictory and unreasonable. The notice party argued that the judge had discretion to dispose of the case through a charitable payment, and that judicial review was not the proper way to challenge the decision.
Kearns P. concluded that the District Court judge was acting within jurisdiction and had found “extenuating circumstances of a special character” justifying the exercise of discretion. He said the High Court should not direct the judge to enter a guilty verdict or decide the penalty, which would intrude on the trial judge’s role. He also cited the substantial charitable payment, made without prosecution objection at the time, and found that an appeal was the appropriate remedy.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not quash the District Court order or direct a conviction or sentence. The judgment does not specify the amount of the balance ultimately paid to charity.