top of page

Vulnerable Defendants 

Case Law

Click on button to open case law 

DPP v TC 2017 IEDC 7

Comprehensive summary by Judge John O'Connor formerly of the Children's Court , now Judge of the Circuit Court, of the legal principles in relation to sentencing of children. 

DPP v MS ( A Minor) 2020 (Thursday 2nd July 2020) 

​

Court of Appeal deemed sentence of 11 years for minor who pleaded guilty to attempted murder too lenient. When re-sentenced, the sentence remained the same but the review of that sentence was extended to seven years rather than five years

DPP v BH [2021] IECA 129

​

 Appeal against severity of sentence of life imprisonment ( with review after 10 years) dismissed in respect of  child defendant (16 years of age at time of offence) who had pleaded to murder. 

Delay /Ageing Out 

​

The Court Services Annual Report  indicates  that waiting times  in the Central Criminal Court are, on average, 11 months and that ‘earlier dates are made available for trials involving child and other vulnerable witnesses’. This figure does not take into account time spent in the District Court for service of the Book of Evidence.  In this jurisdiction, the issues regarding delay for hearings of child defendants have been comprehensively examined in the case of  RD v DPP [2018] IEHC 164.

​

Domestic and international legislation requires that there is no delay when it comes to matters involving child defendants ( S. 73 Children Act 2001,  Rule 20.1 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules") states that:

Each case shall from the outset be handled expeditiously, without any unnecessary delay    

Article 40.2 (b)(iii) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states the State Parties shall ensure:

(iii) ‘To have the matter determined without delay…..’

Furlong v DPP [2021] IEHC 326

​

Judgment released on www.courts.ie 13th May 2021

​

Judicial Review case where child defendant had turned 18 during the criminal proceedings. A case wa brought to restrain proceedings as the defendant had lost opportunites to apply under s.75 Children Act 2001 to have the opportunity to have the case tried before the District Court as well as other provisions e.g. reporting restrictions, obligatory probation report. The JR application was successful and the judgment is interesting as the Court looked at all the elements of the delay. While finding that the defendant was culpable for part of the delay, the Court ultimately restrained the prosecution of the offences. 

bottom of page