The Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the convictions and sentences of two young men, cousins Fergal Cagney and Ronan McGrath, for "reckless endangerment" arising from an incident in Dublin during which another man was hit with a blow, fell on to the road and died later in hospital.
David Langan (19), from Castleknock, Dublin, died from brain stem death in August 2000.
Given that it was seven years since the incident, the "general good character" of both men, and the fact Mr Cagney had since suffered "devastating injuries" in a road incident, the court said it would not order a retrial.
In a case involving the first consideration by the Supreme Court of the nature of the offence of "reckless endangerment", the five-judge court voiced strong concerns about what Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman described as the "vague" and "notably open-ended" nature of the offence as set out in Section 13 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
The court indicated the DPP should have brought a charge of assault instead of reckless endangerment in this case, with Mr Justice Hardiman suggesting the endangerment charge was a "fall back" to the more serious charge of manslaughter, of which both men were acquitted.
The court said the inclusion of the endangerment charge required complex instructions which were not given to the jury by the prosecution or trial judge.
The jury was not charged that the recklessness must be intentional, creating a "substantial risk" of death or serious injury.
It was allowing the appeal by Mr Cagney, of Kilteely, Co Limerick, and Mr McGrath, of Deerpark Road, Castleknock, against their convictions and 15-month sentences for reckless endangerment arising from an incident near Portobello Bridge in Dublin on August 25th, 2000, following which Mr Langan died five days later in hospital.
Both men, then aged 19 and 18 respectively, were cleared of the manslaughter of Mr Langan but were convicted, by a majority jury verdict, of reckless endangerment. They were freed on bail because of the issues raised in their appeals.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, while rejecting the appeal, certified the case raised an issue which should be determined by the Supreme Court - whether the offence of endangerment could be construed so as to cover the circumstances of the men's case.