A young man charged with sexually assaulting, when aged 15, the six-year-old daughter of a neighbour has lost a High Court bid to stop his trial.
He claimed a lengthy prosecutorial delay meant he would lose the benefits of being tried as a child, including anonymity and a less severe penalty if convicted.
It is alleged the applicant, now aged 19, was in a bedroom of the neighbour’s house along with the six-year-old girl’s younger brother.
The girl came downstairs with blood on her vagina and a bruise on the upper part of one leg.
The mother made a complaint to gardaí in October 2014.
A bloodstain on the then 15-year-old applicant’s tracksuit bottoms was found to match that of the girl, it is alleged.
On Thursday, Mr Justice Michael Twomey accepted there was blameworthy prosecutorial delay by a cumulative 69-week period between when the applicant was arrested in March 2015 and when he was charged in February 2017 just after he had turned 18.
That was overridden by the public interest in prosecuting a particularly serious offence of sexual assault on a young child, the judge said.
It was argued the applicant could have got the benefit of the Garda “youth diversionary programme” had he been dealt with in time as a minor instead of now facing a jail sentence of up to 14 years as an adult if convicted.
Mr Justice Twomey said the only way he could have been dealt with under that programme was if he made full admissions for what he had done and the applicant had not done so.
The anonymity he would have enjoyed as a child can continue if the trial judge so decides, Mr Justice Twomey said.
The District Judge whom the applicant had appeared before had already ordered that he had a right to anonymity under the Children Act and this had been continued in his challenge before the High Court, he noted.
His age at the time of the offence will be the starting point of any sentencing hearing, should he be convicted, the judge added.
The trial judge is likely to apply the principles applicable to the sentencing of children and is likely to order a probation report before sentence, he said.
As regards the claim he would be denied a benefit of the Children Act which says detention of a child should only be “a measure of last resort”, in the context of maintaining and promoting the development of a child, this is also likely to be considered by the sentencing judge.
A further issue to be considered in this case is the existence of DNA evidence (from the blood on his tracksuit) which weighs against prohibition of a trial, he said.