Boy (15) to stand trial over M50 pursuit which saw stolen car collide twice with garda vehicle

A 15-YEAR-OLD BOY is to stand trial over a high-speed traffic pursuit on the M50 in Dublin, during which a stolen hot-wired car collided twice with a garda patrol vehicle.

The accused cannot be identified because he is a minor.

He appeared at Dublin Children’s Court on Wednesday, facing charges of criminal damage, driving a stolen car, and dangerous driving in connection with the incident in the early hours of 11 June last.

Judge Karen Dowling noted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) recommended the case be sent to the Circuit Court with wider sentencing powers.

The boy, accompanied in court by his parents, attended a preliminary hearing to determine his trial venue.

Garda Mark Faul outlined the alleged facts, telling the court the accused was driving a stolen, hot-wired 2013-registered Mazda Demio.

The Japanese import was described as easily stolen and had been taken from a residence in Co Carlow four days before the incident.

Garda Faul said that at 3.30am, the car was tracked travelling southbound on the M50.

It approached Junction 12, exiting via the slip road before turning right over the bridge to rejoin the motorway northbound.

Advertisement

A garda patrol car attempted to position itself in front of the Mazda to prevent it from re-entering the M50.

At that point, the teenager drove the front of the stolen car into the rear bumper of the patrol vehicle.

Garda Faul testified that the Mazda then proceeded down the northbound slip road and stopped at the bottom as though preparing to turn right, the wrong way. The teenager “slammed on the brakes”, causing the patrol car to strike it from behind, the court heard.

Two other youths were passengers in the car at the time.

Under cross-examination, Garda Faul agreed with defence counsel Orla Doolin BL that the financial damage was in the hundreds of euros rather than thousands, and confirmed the boy had no prior convictions at the time.

The State argued the matter was a non-minor offence and should be sent to the higher level.

However, Doolin urged the judge to accept jurisdiction under Section 75 of the Children Act, which requires the court to consider the boy’s age, level of maturity, and responsibility. Counsel stated the teenager would enter a guilty plea if the Children’s Court retained the case.

The defence submitted this was not a case of extensive ramming and referred to the low monetary value of the damage.

Counsel added there were concerns regarding the boy’s mental health, noting he was engaging with community services and eager to return to education.

Doolin stressed that the sentencing powers available under the Children Act were adequate.

However, Judge Dowling agreed with the DPP that the case was too serious and refused jurisdiction. She remanded the boy on continuing bail to appear again in December to serve a book of evidence and to grant a return-for-trial order.