The High Court has prohibited the future prosecution of a young man charged with assault causing harm, ruling that unexplained delays meant he lost important protections available to children facing criminal proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 24 May 2023, Mr Justice Barr found two periods of culpable delay between the alleged assault in July 2019 and the applicant’s 18th birthday in February 2021. The court said the investigation was largely complete soon after the incident, but the prosecution had offered no credible explanation for failing to bring the case on before he reached adulthood.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as D.K., was 16 years and five months old when the alleged incident occurred at a Londis shop on Main Street, Maynooth, Co Kildare. The prosecution alleged that he was among a group of youths who returned to the shop and assaulted a staff member, who lost a tooth and suffered bruising. D.K. was arrested two days later and made admissions in interview.
He was charged in April 2021, after turning 18. The District Court had declined jurisdiction to hear the case summarily, and the prosecution was pending before the Circuit Criminal Court in Kildare when D.K. sought judicial review to stop it.
Justice Barr found culpable delay in the nine months before April 2020, including delays in referring the matter to the Garda Youth Diversion Programme and receiving a response. He also found culpable delay between April 2020, when D.K. was deemed unsuitable for the programme, and March 2021, when the file was sent for directions. The judge noted that the medical reports were not included in the book of evidence ultimately served.
The court accepted that the loss of the opportunity to seek summary disposal under section 75 of the Children Act was unlikely to have changed the outcome: the District Court judge had already refused jurisdiction in the case and in a co-accused’s application. But Justice Barr found that losing anonymity was significant. He said online reporting could leave a lasting record affecting a young person’s future, including employment prospects. The court also treated the loss of mandatory protections for child defendants, particularly at sentencing, as prejudicial even where some measures might remain available at a judge’s discretion.
The judge concluded that these consequences outweighed the public interest in prosecuting the serious charge. He ordered that the applicant’s future prosecution on charges arising from the July 2019 events be prohibited. The final terms of the order and costs were not settled in the judgment: the parties were given three weeks to make written submissions, and the matter was listed for mention on 15 June 2023.