Young offenders got the 'heebie-jeebies' after Kildare court appearance
Naas Courthouse
A JUDGE grudgingly agreed with the probation service’s recommendation to try two teens in the district court rather than send them to the circuit court after the pair were charged with causing damage worth over €10,000 to a van.
The two are charged with reckless endangerment and criminal damage to a VW Caddy van after they threw pallets, traffic cones, and gas cylinders into the road of a town in the Naas Court District in the early hours of 26 July which caused a man on his way to early work to swerve and caused €10,582 worth of damage to his Caddy van.
“On the last date you said it should be a judge and jury, that’s why we invoked the Section 75 (to keep children out of jury trials),” said solicitor Tim Kennelly.
“This could easily be dealt with in the district court, but you put the ‘heebie-jeebies’ into them thinking they would have to go over there,” he said.
On their last court date Judge Desmond Zaidan refused jurisdiction and told them they could be facing up to 14 years on jail.
“I wasn’t impressed by the boys, but I was by their parents,” said the judge.
“Sergeant, it’s the state’s case, you don’t believe it was intentional (endangerment) if you act the maggot and put bollards and other obstacles into the middle of the road?” asked the judge of Sgt Mary Meade, and she concurred.
Mr Kennelly quoted from the Section 75 Act “…the court shall take into consideration their age and circumstances…” adding: “you have wide discretion, to include the parents who are so heavily involved”.
“You said yourself, they were gutted,” said Mr Kennelly.
“They play with fire, they will get burnt … if you put obstacles on the road there are consequences,” said the judge.
The parents addressed the court and told how both were attending a Foróige Youth Offenders programme and would be sitting their mocks next week.
“Is he doing ok?” asked the judge of one of the attending parents.
“To be fair, not the best,” replied the mother honestly.
“Are you the father? You’re very quiet. Is she the boss?” asked the judge of the patriarch.
“Have you got those cones? You should put them between these boys.
“€10,500. I’ll bet that car was a write-off.
“So, what you’re saying (in light of the Section 75 ruling) is that you’d prefer your boys to go to prison for two years instead of 14?” said the judge “To be fair though, there is such a backlog of cases in the circuit court I worry it’d never be heard,” commented Mr Kennelly.
“Having this hang over them has been a huge burden, especially with exams as well, so I’d plead with you to keep it here,” he added.
“This was first up here on 22 January, and the DPP wanted me to hear the case, but I refused, though allowed the defence to bring the Section 75,” said the judge.
“I’ve no doubt in my mind these offences are very serious, Mr Kennelly … the court shall take into consideration their age, maturity, and any other relevant facts, such as their parents.
“They should’ve known the consequences of this behaviour, but their saving grace is Part B (of the Section 75) so against my better judgement, I will accede to Mr Kennelly and keep this case here for two reasons.
“The position adopted by the parents, who were mortified by the boy’s behaviour and didn’t mince their words, and secondly, the DPP recognised that if it went to full trial it would focus on the reckless rather than criminal intent.” The judge adjourned the case until 5 March for a final Probation Report and sentencing.
One of the mothers enquired about legal aid as they were only working part-time, but the judge said: “Don’t worry about that but worry that they might be looking at the four walls of a cell in Oberstown (Youth Detention) where they might meet Boy A and Boy B,” he warned.
“Keep a tight rein on these boys, get them involved in sports, persevere in school because you need education and training to provide for yourself if you want to be men.
“Make the most of it and don’t waste it, because it’s a bad world out there and you will be 18 very soon.”
