Court of Appeal allows appeal against an injunction granted by the High Court in judicial review proceedings for culpable delay in prosecuting charges relating to an assault in a shop premises, on the grounds that: (a) while there was blameworthy delay, it was materially contributed to by the respondent; and (b) the seriousness of the offence and the public interest in having the offences of such seriousness prosecuted are served by permitting the prosecution to proceed.
Birmingham P: Criminal Law – judicial review decision appeal – assault where a glass bottle was thrown at a security guard in a shop – glass bottle hit the guard but deflected and struck sixty-nine year old customer in the face – customer suffered significant injuries – accused committed offence when seventeen years old – accused charged fifteen months after the offence when he had attained majority – accused was successful in his judicial review application seeking an injunction restraining his prosecution on two charges of assault – prosecutorial delay – prejudice outweighed the public interest in the prosecution of the offences charged – whether the High Court Judge fell into error and entered into micromanagement of Garda investigations – whether the delay were at most “pockets of delay” which were not necessarily sufficient to trigger a balancing exercise – the investigation was not a complex one – not unrealistic to hope that the interviews with the three significant civilian witnesses could have taken place within three to four weeks of the incident – arrangements for arrest by appointment could have been made shortly thereafter - High Court judge was correct in finding that there was blameworthy prosecutorial delay – however culpable or blameworthy prosecutorial Garda delay is not the end of the matter – there is a requirement for a balancing exercise between the public interest in having serious charges investigated and prosecuted, and the prejudice to the suspect – combined loss of anonymity and a potential s.75 hearing does amount to a significant disadvantage – further matter, accused’s failure to attend the appointment for the arrest, need to be weighed in the balance – failure to keep the appointment was significant in the context of the overall timetable – while there was delay, it was materially contributed by the accused – the balancing exercise required leads to a conclusion that the interests of justice are served by permitting the prosecution to proceed – appeal allowed.