Director of Public Prosecutions -v- R. McA

• Judge: O'Connor John J.
• Judgment Date: 01 June 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEDC 10
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

[2016] IEDC 10

THE CHILDREN COURT- DUBLIN METROPLOITIAN DISTRICT COURT

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (DPP)

APPLICANT

-AND-

R.McA

Defendant

1. The def endant R.McA [“t he defendant “] was born in 2000s and is currently a t eenage child. He is in full- t ime care of the State .

He was admitted to a Special Care Unit for young persons [ “SCU “] on foot of a High Court Order granted in summer 2014 pursuant to

sect ion 23B of the Child Care Act 1991 as inserted by sec tion 16 of t he Children Act 2001 and remained in a SCU for a period of

approximately 22 months. The defendant is no longer a resident in a SCU, but he is s till under the care of the CFA in a step down

facility run by Solas.

2. The Child and Family Agency otherwise known as T ulsa [“The CFA “] is t he dedicate d Stat e agency responsible for improving the

well-being and outcomes for c hildren.

3. The def endant is c harged by:

A. Garda A with alleged 1 offenc e of criminal damage in a SCU in winter 2015 contrary t o sec tion 2(1) of t he Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

B. Garda B with alleged 1 offenc e of criminal damage in a SCU in winter 2015 cont rary to sec tion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

C. Garda C with alleged 1 offenc e of assa ult causing in a SCU in winter 2015 cont rary to sec tion 3 of the non-fat al

Offences against the Persons Act 1997.

D. Garda D with alleged 1 offenc e of criminal damage in a SCU in winter 2015 contrary t o section 2(1) of t he Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

E. Garda E with alleged 2 offence s of c riminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to sec tion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

F. Garda F with alleged 1 off ence of criminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to sect ion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

G. Garda F w ith alleged 1 offence of c riminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to sec tion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

H. Garda G with alleged 1 offenc e of criminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to se ct ion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

I. Garda H with alleged 1 offence of criminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to sect ion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001

J. Garda I with alleged 1 offence of c riminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 cont rary to sec tion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

K. Garda J with alleged 1 offence o f criminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary t o sec tion 2(1) of t he Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

L. Garda K with alleged 1 offence of criminal damage in a SCU in autumn 2015 contrary to sect ion 2(1) of the Criminal

Damage Act 2001.

Submissions

4. The def endant’s submissions both in writing and orally [together w ith a booklet of reports dated summer 2016] have been outlined

to t he Court by his c ounsel, and instructed by solicitors.

5. The Prosec ution replied in writing in summer 2016 and orally submissions were submitted by legal representative for t he Director of

Public Prosecutions [“DPP”].

6. A report by Dr. GC, consultant child and adolescent psyc hiatrist, dated spring 2016 [“The GC Report “ ] wa s furnished to the Court.

7. The GC Report is acc epted by the prosec ution and defenc e.

8. The let ter of instruc tions to Dr. GC to e nable him to prepare his report was agreed by the DPP, t he Defence and this Court prior to

Dr. GC furnishing his report.

9. The Prosec ution and Defence agreed that one of t he issues t hat arise in this c ase is of “m ens rea“ a nd capac ity t o litigate in a

criminal trial. I am in agreement that these issues a re not ones of capac ity a nd not mental disorder as defined in the Criminal Law

Insanity 2006 [” the 2006 Act “] as amended. In effec t, it is ac cept ed the def endant doesn’t plead an insanity defence or a fitness to

plead procedure as outlined in the 2006 Ac t.

Defendant’s childhood issues