The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the prosecution of Stephen Cormack on three charges, despite finding that gardaí made little real effort to execute arrest warrants for about two years. Mr Justice Feeney said the applicant’s claim of prejudice was a bald assertion and did not justify halting the trials.
The judgment, delivered on 27 July 2006, concerns charges listed in Blanchardstown. Two allegations arose from a charge sheet dated 28 July 2002: public intoxication and possessing a lump hammer without lawful authority or reasonable excuse for the purpose of causing injury or incapacitating a person. A third allegation, on a charge sheet dated 9 February 2003, was that Mr Cormack stole a large pink Valentine’s teddy bear valued at €65.30.
Mr Cormack missed court on 10 February 2003, when the two earlier charges were due for trial, and again on 17 February, for a remand in the theft case. Bench warrants were issued. He said he had been under the influence of alcohol and did not remember the court dates. The judge noted that he had been legally represented at the first missed appearance.
The court found that, after one visit to his stated address in early March 2003, there was no enforcement attempt until April 2004. Garda Karl Smith then spoke with Mr Cormack’s mother, who said he was not living there and agreed to pass on that gardaí were looking for him. Mr Cormack attended the station within days. Garda Smith was unable to execute the warrant because of more urgent work. Mr Cormack said he returned the following day; Garda Smith had no knowledge of that second visit.
No further attempt was made for another year. In April 2005, Garda Caplice called at the address but found nobody there. The warrants were executed on 26 April 2005, after Mr Cormack attended the station in response to a letter about the estreatment of his bail. He was brought before the court the next day. The cases were later adjourned to 27 June because of an absent witness and a sick garda.
Mr Cormack sought prohibition on the basis that delay had impaired his ability to defend himself, saying he had a “very dim memory of the dates in question”. The judge found the delay in executing the warrants inordinate and said the gardaí had been entirely inactive for substantial periods. But he also found that the prejudice claim lacked specific examples and that the delay did not make prejudice manifest.
Applying the balancing approach set out in a recent Supreme Court decision, the judge concluded that the applicant had not put enough before the court to outweigh the public interest in prosecuting the charges. The application for judicial review was declined. The court did not prohibit the prosecutions or determine the underlying charges.