High Court gives permission for boy (16) to challenge sentence in 'disgraceful' circumstances

High Court reporters

The High Court has granted permission to a teenager to challenge a decision by a District Court judge to sentence him to a suspended prison term because of a lack of approved hostels providing residential settings for minors convicted of crimes.

The 16-year-old, who cannot be named, is taking the action through his father after he was sentenced in July of this year by a Dublin District Court judge who branded the situation a "disgrace".

The boy's three-month prison sentence was fully suspended for six months.

The action seeks to quash the District Court's allegedly "unlawful" sentence and demands that the State provide the father with details of how many certified and inspected hostels in the country are available to probation and welfare services.

A declaration is also sought from the court that the State failed to protect and vindicate the boy's constitutional rights and that they failed to comply with their statutory obligations.

The action is being taken against the District Court judge, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General.

Papers submitted to the High Court state that since 2023, the boy has been charged in the District Court with drug offences, theft, burglary, dangerous driving, criminal damage, unauthorised taking of a vehicle, and possession of certain articles.

At the High Court this week, Joe Jeffers SC, for the boy, told Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty that the teen was eligible for a Probation Residential Supervision Order (PRSO) but no suitable premises were available.

It is submitted on behalf of the boy that on July 7th, 2025, the District Court judge "expressly stated that he wished to impose a PRSO, which is a form of probation order, on the applicant, but that he [the judge] was precluded from imposing such a sanction due to the absence of any hostel residence".

It is claimed that the judge's discretion when imposing sentence on the applicant was "unlawfully fettered" by the State's failure to provide proper hostel residence under Section 126 of the Children Act 2001.

"The applicant was sentenced to a suspended custodial sentence, contrary to the express wishes of the District Court," it is submitted.

In an affidavit, the father has submitted that the boy's mother has addiction issues and that he has been living with his great-grandmother, who is in her 80s, at an address in Dublin.

The man submits that the great-grandmother is "barely mobile, uses a walking aid with a seat and sometimes crutches," and that he has "real concerns about her ability to care for and supervise [the boy]".

The man states that his son has fallen in with a "bad crowd steeped in criminal activity" and drug-taking.

The father's affidavit reads that his son came to the regular attention of gardaí and was recently arrested while travelling in a stolen vehicle being driven the wrong way down a motorway.

While the man would "love" to care for his son on a permanent basis, he describes their relationship as "difficult".

He states that had a PRSO been imposed by the judge, the boy would be placed in a hostel and would have received health and education aid.

It is submitted that the District Court judge said it was a "disgrace" that sanctions provided in the statute were not available to him and that the judge stated, "for the record, I want to impose a residential order but cannot do so".

Ms Justice Gearty granted leave for the ex parte application, where only one side is represented, and adjourned the matter to November.