The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of an adult accused of rape over an alleged offence committed when he was 15, despite finding that the investigation was marked by inordinate, inexcusable and unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained delays.
In a judgment delivered on 17 May 2018, Mr Justice McDermott said the delays amounted to blameworthy prosecutorial delay. The accused had sought prohibition or an injunction to prevent his trial in the Central Criminal Court. The judgment concerns that judicial review application; it does not determine whether the rape allegation is true.
The alleged offence was said to have occurred on 19 August 2014. The complainant made a formal complaint in January 2015. The court found that analysis of her phone, a relatively straightforward process, was delayed for four months because the designated Garda analyst was occupied with other duties. The court also found unjustified delay in obtaining guidance about recording the accused on the Garda PULSE system, and a further unexplained delay in taking a statement from another juvenile whose phone was linked to the messages.
The accused was interviewed in December 2015. The investigation file was sent for prosecution directions in July 2016, and the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that he be charged the following month. He was not charged until January 2017, after a referral to the Juvenile Diversion Programme. The court said the usual procedure would have assessed suitability before the file went to the Director. It found that the later referral delayed charging, but that the accused had not shown willingness to accept responsibility, a prerequisite for admission, and suffered no discernible prejudice from the sequence.
The judge said the case was relatively uncomplicated and that the State had a special duty to provide a speedy trial where an alleged offence was committed by a child. He nevertheless concluded that the delay did not outweigh the public interest in trying a charge as serious as rape. The judgment noted that sentencing, if there were a conviction, would take account of the accused’s age and maturity when the alleged offence occurred. It also found no claimed risk of an unfair jury trial; the asserted prejudice concerned possible sentencing consequences.
The court refused the requested relief. The prosecution may proceed; the judgment makes no finding of guilt or innocence.