The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by J.(S).T. seeking to stop his trial on 251 counts of indecent assault relating to alleged offences against pupils at a Limerick national school between 1979 and 1981, when he was a teacher there.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Chief Justice Susan Denham on 10 March 2015, affirmed the High Court’s refusal to prohibit the trial. It held that the circumstances raised by the appellant, taken together, did not meet the high threshold for stopping a criminal trial.
The appeal concerned two sets of proceedings before Limerick Circuit Criminal Court, comprising 113 and 139 charges. The appellant argued that delay, his age and health, missing witnesses and counselling records, prior trials on similar allegations, and publicity surrounding earlier allegations made a fair trial impossible. Those points were submissions by the appellant; the court did not make findings that the charges were true or determine his guilt.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the investigation was complex, that there had been no blameworthy prosecutorial delay, and that no specific prejudice sufficient to justify prohibition had been established. The Supreme Court said that even if blameworthy prosecutorial delay arose, the court had to balance the claimed prejudice against the public interest in serious charges proceeding to trial.
The court said the appellant’s earlier prosecutions and time spent in custody while awaiting those trials were not relevant to whether the present trial should be prohibited. It also held that the death or unavailability of witnesses and the destruction of counselling records did not, on their own, justify stopping the trial. The trial judge could consider the missing records issue during the proceedings. Questions about the appellant’s fitness to stand trial were matters for the trial court under separate procedures.
The judgment separately addressed apparent leaks of information about the investigation by one or more Garda members. The court condemned unauthorised leaks, saying they could, in an appropriate case, lead to a trial being prohibited. It nevertheless concluded that the apparent leaks and prejudicial publicity did not justify stopping this trial in the circumstances, including because time had passed.
The order left the criminal proceedings to continue. The Supreme Court did not decide the allegations against the appellant; it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order refusing prohibition.