Three teenage boys are facing charges for attacking US tourist Stephen Termini who was hospitalised after suffering severe injuries in Dublin.
The 57-year-old from Buffalo, New York was rushed to hospital after an incident on the corner of Store Street and Talbot Street in the north inner city last week and is continuing to receive treatment.
The alleged attackers, three boys aged 14, 15 and 16, were remanded on bail pending directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on Thursday.
A 14-year-old boy was charged on Sunday and granted bail with conditions following a special court sitting on Sunday. He is charged with assault causing harm to Mr Termini at Store Street, Dublin 1, on July 19th, contrary to section three of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.
Katie Taylor and Amanda Serrano set to show true boxing values at strange big-money event
‘I want someone to take an actual stand on immigration’: How will TCD student debaters vote?
Spice Village takeaway review: Indian food in south Dublin that will keep you coming back
Trump’s cabinet: who’s been picked, who’s in the running?
He on Thursday appeared before District Court President Judge Paul Kelly at the Dublin Children’s Court, where he was accompanied by his father.
Sgt John Brady of Store Street station told the court that the DPP’s directions were not yet available. “We are working on the file; I think there is agreement to put it back to a date in October,” he said.
Defence barrister Róisín O’Mara confirmed there was consent to the adjournment sought by Sgt Brady. She asked the court to vary the bail terms, which were not read out, for a week commencing in August. Sgt Brady did not object to the application, which was granted.
The second defendant, a 15-year-old boy, was brought before the judge on Thursday afternoon. Sgt Niall Godfrey told Judge Kelly that the teen was arrested at his home on Dublin’s northside at 7.30am and taken to Store Street station, where he was detained and later charged with assault causing harm to Mr Termini. The court heard he made no reply to the charge after caution.
Sgt Godfrey had no objection to bail subject to conditions agreed with defence solicitor David Bassett. The teenager was ordered to stay out of Talbot Street, Portland Row, Summerhill, Gardiner Street, Amiens Street, Railway Street, and the surrounding areas in the north inner city.
He must obey a 9pm to 7am curfew and provide gardaí with a contact number. Furthermore, the judge barred him from communicating with the first defendant. The boy, who was accompanied to court by his father, nodded to indicate that he understood when the judge warned that breaking the terms could result in the court revoking bail.
The third boy (16) was brought before Judge Kelly shortly after 3pm charged with assault causing harm. Det Sgt Shane Noone told the court that boy “made no reply” when charged.
Det Sgt Noone said he had no objection to bail with conditions and defence solicitor Roy O’Neill consented to the terms.
This teenager must obey a 9pm–7am curfew, provide a mobile phone number and “be contactable 24 hours a day”, and not associate with the co-defendants. He has to stay off Talbot Street, Railway Street and James Joyce Street.
The boy’s mother asked if her son “is allowed to have a sleepover”. Det Sgt Noone said he was amenable to that if he knew where the boy was staying. The teen replied “no problem” when warned not to contact the co-defendants and told “if you see them on the street, stay out of their way”.
His mother said “he will not be with those lads”, but raised queries about the areas her son has been barred from by the court.
“This incident involves CCTV where youths were hanging around Railway Street, and it emanated from there. We are concerned that it could go back to that situation, and we want to avoid that,” Det Sgt Noone explained.
Mother and son thanked the judge as he was released.
The three boys, who were granted legal aid, will appear in court again on October 5th for the DPP’s directions in the case to be given. A decision has yet to be made as to whether the case will remain in the Children’s Court or go forward to the Circuit Court, which has broader sentencing powers.