The High Court has refused to halt the prosecution of a man charged with violent disorder over an alleged incident when he was a minor, despite finding blameworthy delay in the investigation.
The applicant, anonymised as C.L. in the judgment, asked the court to prohibit his trial or, alternatively, to limit the Circuit Court’s sentencing jurisdiction to that of the District Court. The judgment does not determine whether he committed the alleged offence. The charge remains to be tried.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy found that investigators had not shown awareness of the applicant’s approaching 18th birthday. After receiving a medical clarification report in June 2020, more than six months passed while Gardaí sought to locate another accused. The judge said the applicant’s file could have been referred to the Juvenile Liaison Officer earlier, and concluded that this amounted to blameworthy delay.
The judge did not find blameworthy delay before 3 June 2020. He accepted that the medical evidence concerning an injured party who later died needed to be obtained, and that the applicant’s interview had been arranged alongside interviews concerning other investigations.
The applicant argued that the delay deprived him of protections under the Children Act 2001, including a hearing at which the Children’s Court could consider whether to deal with the indictable charge summarily, reporting restrictions, and protections relevant to sentencing. The judge said the loss of anonymity was a significant and irremediable disadvantage. He also found, however, that it was more likely than not the Children’s Court would have refused jurisdiction, given the seriousness of the charge and the alleged use of a baseball bat.
Other sentencing protections, including detention as a last resort and an automatic probation report, would have applied only if the applicant were still a child at sentencing. The judge said some related considerations could be raised with the Circuit Court if sentencing became necessary.
Balancing the prejudice against the public interest, Justice Mulcahy pointed to the seriousness of the charge, its maximum 10-year sentence and CCTV evidence that appeared strong. He said the culpability for delay was at the lower end of the scale and that prohibiting the trial would give the applicant a benefit he would not have obtained even if dealt with in the District Court as a minor.
The court refused both forms of relief. It listed the matter for 11 July 2023 to deal with any costs applications.