The High Court dismissed Anthony O’Connor’s judicial review challenge to a District Court ruling that it had no jurisdiction to hear his argument about delay in a burglary prosecution.
Mr Justice McDermott held that the District Court could not consider a delay application in advance of the conditions required for summary disposal on a guilty plea. The applicant had not indicated that he wished to plead guilty, although the Director of Public Prosecutions had consented to summary disposal on that basis.
The charge arose from an allegation that O’Connor entered a building at 14 St. George’s Avenue, Drumcondra as a trespasser and committed theft. He was arrested with two others in September 2012 and released without charge. He was arrested again in January 2014, charged and brought before the Dublin Children Court on 22 January. The judgment records that one co-accused was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence.
The proceedings were transferred from the Children’s Court to the District Court after the juvenile co-accused was sent forward to the Circuit Court. On 10 June 2014, District Judge Michael Walsh ruled that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a preliminary argument about delay. O’Connor was granted leave to seek judicial review on 30 June 2014, seeking to quash that ruling and obtain declarations concerning his legal and constitutional rights.
The High Court said a guilty plea and the DPP’s consent were necessary before the District Court could exercise its limited jurisdiction under section 13(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. In the absence of those conditions, the District Court could not dispose of the indictable charge under that procedure; the only trial available was on indictment in the Circuit Court. A person seeking to stop such a prosecution because delay posed a real risk to trial fairness could apply to the High Court for judicial review, the judge said.
The judge also addressed the delay on the evidence before him. He found that the investigation and prosecution had proceeded within a reasonable timeframe. The 16-month period between the alleged offence and O’Connor’s first court appearance did not amount to culpable delay sufficient to justify relief. The judgment said there was no evidence that O’Connor had suffered, or risked suffering, prejudice or disadvantage because of the time taken.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not determine the underlying burglary charge.