The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of a man charged with assault over an incident when he was 17, finding that the prosecution had not caused blameworthy delay and that the case should proceed.
The applicant sought judicial review to prohibit the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting him. He argued that delays meant he lost the possibility of being dealt with as a child under section 75 of the Children Act 2001, and that his right to a fair trial had been prejudiced. He also sought to quash a District Court judge’s refusal to rule on delay.
The charge concerns an alleged assault on a young woman on 21 April 2013. The judgment records that a bottle was allegedly thrown at her and that she was then punched and lost consciousness. The applicant denied involvement in his first Garda interview in September 2013 and gave an alibi. After further inquiries, including an interview with his girlfriend, he was interviewed again, admitted the offence and withdrew the alibi. These are allegations and evidence recounted in the judgment; the High Court was not deciding the criminal charge.
President of the High Court Kearns found that Gardaí had faced uncooperative potential witnesses and had taken steps to gather evidence before interviewing the applicant. The judge considered that approach reasonable given the uncertainty around identification and the seriousness of the allegation. The Garda file was completed within three weeks of the applicant’s admissions and sent to the Garda Youth Diversion Office. The court accepted that the office sought further information about the injured party’s views before issuing its decision.
The applicant turned 18 on 16 November 2013, before the diversion office’s decision. The court said it was highly unlikely that even a faster investigation would have allowed a section 75 hearing and sentencing to be completed before he turned 18, given the required referrals. It also noted that he had been 17 years and five months old at the time of the alleged offence, and that no evidence had been presented that his maturity was below average for his age.
The judge concluded there had been no inordinate, blameworthy or inexcusable delay. In the alternative, the court said the public interest in prosecuting a serious offence outweighed the claimed prejudice. It refused the relief sought. The judgment did not determine the applicant’s guilt; it said his age at the time of the alleged offence could be considered by the trial court if he were convicted.