The High Court has ruled that, in the circumstances presented in a case stated from the District Court, previous convictions could not be considered when deciding whether a child charged with an indictable offence should be tried summarily or sent forward for trial on indictment.
Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan gave the judgment on 11 July 2022. The case arose after a District Court judge referred questions under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 about section 75 of the Children Act 2001. The first asked whether the Children Court could consider a child’s previous convictions when deciding jurisdiction where the Director of Public Prosecutions had not directed or consented to summary disposal.
The child, identified in the judgment as O’F, was charged with violent disorder arising from an incident on 17 November 2020. The judgment says the child was born on 26 December 2004. The DPP recommended trial by indictment on 8 July 2021, engaging the section 75 procedure.
In the District Court, the child’s solicitor indicated that the child would plead guilty if the case stayed in that court. The High Court distinguished that conditional indication from a guilty plea or an unqualified intention to plead guilty. The District Court judge had accepted the defence submission that the child had not entered a plea and retained the presumption of innocence.
Justice O’Regan concluded that while the presumption of innocence continued, previous convictions could not be introduced to influence the jurisdiction decision. She said section 75’s reference to “any other facts” relevant to the decision did not specifically authorise consideration of previous convictions. The judgment also rejected the DPP’s argument that it had power to raise prior convictions at that stage, finding no explicit statutory basis for such a power.
The court answered the first question “no” on the facts as presented in the case stated. The two remaining questions—whether the Children Court could request conviction details from the DPP and whether the DPP could refuse—were contingent on a “yes” answer to the first and therefore were not answered. The judgment provides the High Court’s opinion to assist the District Court; it does not record a determination of the child’s charge.