High Court: Accused fails to prohibit trial for violent assault due to prosecutorial delay

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] IEHC 70
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Niamh Hyland

The applicant relied on Donoghue v. DPP [2014] IESC 56 and argued that there had been culpable prosecutorial delay, causing him to lose advantages under the Children Act 2001. However, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland determined that the public interest in permitting the trial to proceed outweighed the disadvantage to the applicant.

Background

In November 2017, two teenagers were lured to Gormanstown, County Meath as part of an ongoing racist and interracial feud. The teenagers, known as AC and JC, were walking in the direction of Stamullen when they were attacked by a large group of teenagers. There were about 20 assailants in total.

AC and JC were viciously assaulted, beaten with weapons, stamped on and stripped of their clothing. They were also robbed of their possessions. The victims suffered inter alia bruising, broken bones, facial fractures and swelling. AC also suffered a bleed on the brain. The victims were left on the side of the road and were assisted by a witness to the events.

The assailants fled the scene immediately after the attack. There was no CCTV footage of the incident and the victims were unable to identify any of the attackers. Subsequently, the gardaí conducted a lengthy investigation involving DNA analysis, interrogation of social media and interviews with 10 persons of interest. The gardaí identified 28 persons of interest in total.

Five days later, the gardaí identified the applicant. In March 2018, the applicant was arrested and interviewed. The applicant made important admissions, including that he knew there would be a gang fight and that he had hit the victims. He accepted that the victims were lured to Gormanstown and that he had participated in the robbery.

After the interview, the file was sent to the State Solicitor in July 2018. The last person of interest was interviewed by gardaí in August 2018. In September 2018, the applicant was deemed unsuitable for the juvenile diversion program.

In June 2019, the leading detective forwarded all statements of evidence to the DPP. Before the file was completed, the detective was detailed for duty in the Special Criminal Court and the file was therefore not submitted until January 2020. In April 2020, the DPP directed that charges of robbery, assault and violent disorder be brought against the applicant.

The applicant turned 18 in June 2020 and he was to be returned for trial in September 2020. The applicant issued judicial review proceedings in November 2020 seeking to prohibit the prosecution on the basis of prosecutorial delay. It was argued that if the prosecution had advanced in a timely manner, then his case would likely have been determined prior to his 18^th birthday. As such, he would have been able to avail of the protections afforded under the Children Act.

The applicant placed particular emphasis on the loss of jurisdiction for the Children Court to deal with his case summarily. It was submitted that the District Court would likely have accepted jurisdiction where the applicant intended to plead guilty.

In response, the DPP argued that there was no prosecutorial delay, having regard to the complex nature of the attack and the large number of persons of interest. The investigation was made more difficulty by the planned nature of the attack and the attempts to avoid leaving evidence. It was stated that this should not work to the benefit of the accused.

The DPP also relied on the seriousness of the charges and the vicious nature of the attack. It was submitted that the public interest required the prosecution of the offences.

High Court

Ms Justice Hyland noted that the Donoghue principles were applicable in the case by agreement of the parties. It was held that there was an obligation on the prosecution to avoid delay where the accused is a child.

The court held that there was no delay up until September 2018 in light of the complex case and considerable investigative work carried out by the gardaí. However, there was culpable delay until June 2019, the court said. There was no evidence before the court of steps that were taken during this period despite the case remaining open.

The court did not accept that the gardaí were entitled to wait in the hope that further persons of interest would be identified, as claimed on affidavit.

Finally, there was culpable delay from October to December 2019 when work ceased on the file due to the detective being detailed to the Special Criminal Court. No explanation was offered as to why another person was not assigned to take over the case, the court said.

The court then moved to balance the prejudice to the applicant with the public interest in prosecuting the case. It was noted that all cases fell to be determined on their own merits (Sean Furlong v. DPP [2021] IEHC 326). The court concluded that the public interest outweighed the prejudice to the applicant and refused to prohibit the prosecution.

The court accepted that many of the approaches under the Children Act were available in principle to the Circuit Court. The applicant would lose the certainty of the protections under the Children Act but the benefits still remained open to him, subject to the discretion of the trial judge, the court said.

The applicant would lose the possibility that the Children Court could direct the summary trial of the case, the court said. However, given the seriousness of the offending, there was no guarantee that the court would have accepted jurisdiction. Further, the Circuit Court would still be entitled to consider the applicant’s age and maturity if he was convicted. As such, there was not significant prejudice to the applicant (Wilde v. DPP [2020] IEHC 385).

The court considered the admissions made by the applicant and the facts of the case generally, and held that it was clearly in the public interest to prosecute the matter.

Conclusion

The court held that there was culpable prosecutorial delay but declined to prohibit the prosecution on public interest grounds.