The High Court has refused two applicants’ judicial review challenges to their exclusion from the Juvenile Diversion Programme and their applications to prohibit prosecutions over alleged offences arising from a 2007 attack in Tallaght.
In a judgment delivered on 29 April 2009, Mr Justice Hedigan found no breach of statutory duty or fair procedures in the decisions not to admit the applicants to the programme. He also rejected their claim that delay justified stopping the prosecutions. The court refused all relief sought; it did not determine whether either applicant committed the alleged offences.
The applicants were 17 at the time of the incident on Maplewood Road on 10 February 2007, when two men were attacked and stabbed. Both applicants were arrested the following day and released without charge. A juvenile liaison officer later visited them at their homes. The evidence about what was explained during those visits was disputed, but the judge accepted the officer’s account that she explained the programme and its admission requirements.
The officer recommended against admitting both applicants, citing the alleged offences’ seriousness and circumstances. She also noted that the first applicant had not fully admitted responsibility, while the second had previously received the benefit of the programme. The Director of the Programme decided not to admit them, and they were notified on 15 May 2007.
The applicants argued that the investigating officer, rather than the juvenile liaison officer, should have handled their cases, and that they had not been adequately informed or given a chance to make representations. They also challenged the Director’s reliance on the reports and the absence of reasons. The judge held that the law did not require the investigating officer to administer the programme. He found the applicants had been informed of the scheme and given an opportunity to explain their involvement. In the first applicant’s case, the judge concluded that a claim of self-defence and denial of aspects of the alleged conduct did not meet the statutory requirement to accept responsibility. He also held that the Director could consider the seriousness and circumstances of the allegations and the second applicant’s prior use of the programme.
Charges were directed in November 2007, and both applicants were arrested and charged in February 2008 with two alleged assaults causing harm and violent disorder. They argued that earlier prosecution might have allowed their cases to be dealt with in the Children’s Court. The judge considered that the prosecution delay was not significantly inordinate, blameworthy or inexcusable. Even if there had been delay, he said the public interest in prosecuting alleged violent attacks outweighed the claimed impact, and the trial judge could address any potential injustice. The prosecutions were therefore allowed to proceed.