Judgment: 2003-10-31 · Court archive

Supreme Court allows prosecution of former Dublin teacher on historic sexual offence charges to proceed

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • D.W. (Applicant)
What

Supreme Court allows prosecution of former Dublin teacher on historic sexual offence charges to proceed

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that any prejudice caused by delay was not sufficient to create a real and serious risk of an unfair trial. The appeal was dismissed and the prosecution was permitted to continue.

The Supreme Court has refused to stop the prosecution of a retired Dublin secondary school teacher on 14 historic sexual offence charges involving a former pupil.

The applicant, identified as D.W., had taught at the school from 1964 to 1998. He was charged in November 1999 with two counts of indecent assault allegedly committed in late 1985 and 12 counts of gross indecency allegedly committed between September 1986 and March 1988.

The complainant, born in 1971, attended the school from about 1983 until 1989. He did not report the alleged abuse to Gardaí until June 1998, after being contacted by investigators. He said he had first disclosed the allegations to a student welfare officer in England in 1997.

D.W. sought judicial review, arguing that the delay made a fair trial impossible. He said memories had faded and evidence concerning school timetables, room use and other matters might no longer be available. He also challenged psychological evidence relied upon to explain the complainant’s delay.

The High Court refused to prohibit the prosecution in March 2002. The Supreme Court has now affirmed that decision.

Mrs Justice McGuinness said the complainant’s own sworn evidence was capable of explaining his delay. The relationship between teacher and pupil, the 31-year age difference and the complainant’s account of viewing D.W. as a father figure were also relevant.

The court acknowledged that the passage of time could create evidential difficulties. However, it noted that D.W. appeared to have contemporaneous letters and cheques available to him. The case would therefore not simply amount to an accusation met by a bare denial.

The court also noted that D.W. had admitted to Gardaí that a sexual relationship existed with the complainant at a later stage, while denying sexual activity when the complainant was under 15.

The Supreme Court concluded that any prejudice caused by delay was not sufficient to create a real and serious risk of an unfair trial. The appeal was dismissed and the prosecution was permitted to continue.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review