The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against a High Court order prohibiting the prosecution of D.K. for alleged money laundering. The court agreed that culpable prosecutorial delay, combined with the prejudice of losing protections available to children, justified stopping the prosecution. It reduced the delay attributed to the authorities from 20 months to about six and a half months.
The alleged offence occurred between 22 April and 1 May 2019, when D.K. was 16 years and two months old. The judgment says D.K. admitted allowing a bank account in his name to be used after contact with a social media account called “MoneyMake”. About €6,800 was lodged into the account, and D.K. was promised 30% in return for withdrawing money from post offices. The judgment states he received no payment.
The investigation proceeded promptly through December 2019 and the evidence was gathered by January 2020. The Court of Appeal accepted that the pandemic reasonably explained inactivity from mid-March to D.K.’s arrest on 15 July 2020. It found no proper explanation for the inactivity between January and mid-March, or for the delay in sending the completed investigation file to the National Juvenile Office and the lack of evidence about what happened after that file was sent in August 2020.
The court identified two periods of culpable delay before D.K. turned 18 on 1 February 2021: about two and a half months at the start of 2020, and about six and a half months after his July 2020 arrest. Allowing time for the juvenile office to consider the referral and for the Director to review the file, it assessed the culpable delay at about six and a half months.
The High Court had prohibited the prosecution after finding 20 months of culpable delay and significant prejudice. On appeal, the Director argued that the delay was shorter and that losing protections under the Children Act 2001 did not outweigh the public interest in prosecuting a serious offence. The Court of Appeal agreed that the High Court had overstated the delay, but upheld its balancing decision.
The appeal court said the loss of anonymity and reporting restrictions could leave details of a conviction permanently available online, with potential effects on D.K.’s employment and future prospects. It also considered the loss of other child-specific protections, including safeguards concerning detention and a mandatory probation and welfare report. While describing money laundering as serious, the court said the alleged conduct ranked low in gravity in this case and the investigation was not complex. It concluded that D.K. could and should have been prosecuted before turning 18, and dismissed the appeal. The prosecution therefore remains prohibited by the High Court order.