The High Court ruled that the prosecution could not revive District Court proceedings on a summary assault charge after withdrawing them in 2018, even though it had done so by mistake. Mr Justice Barr granted three of four forms of relief sought by the applicant, identified in the judgment as G.B., in a judicial review of a District Court jurisdiction ruling.
The charge alleged that the applicant assaulted a child at a childcare facility on 17 November 2016, contrary to section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The judgment records the allegation; it does not determine whether the assault occurred.
A first summons issued in July 2017 but was struck out for non-service. A second issued in April 2018. The prosecution withdrew it at Naas District Court on 4 September 2018, believing the summary charge had been added to an indictment in the Circuit Criminal Court. It had not. When that omission emerged at the start of the Circuit Court trial in February 2020, the charge could not be added because it was no longer pending in the District Court.
After that trial concluded, an investigating garda applied for a third summons in June 2020, which issued the following month. The applicant challenged the District Court’s jurisdiction. Following a preliminary hearing on 24 June 2021, the District Court judge ruled that the case could proceed. The High Court granted the applicant leave to seek judicial review.
Justice Barr found that the 2018 withdrawal had ended the District Court proceedings and the application on which the summons was based. The court accepted that the prosecution had intended to pursue the charge and withdrew it because of a mistaken belief. But that intention could not undo the District Court’s order, the judge said, and allowing the prosecution to revive the case would be an abuse of process.
The judge did not decide whether, as a general matter, a fresh summons could be issued on the basis of an earlier application made within the six-month time limit. He also refused one requested form of relief because the order made by the District Court on 24 June 2021 had not been produced.
The judgment maintained an existing restriction on publishing details that could identify the applicant, because that could also identify complainants who were minors in the original charges. The parties were given two weeks to submit written arguments on the terms of the final order and costs. The case was listed for mention on 7 March 2023; the judgment does not state the final order or costs outcome.