The High Court has refused an application to stop a prosecution involving nine alleged indecent assaults, finding no irredeemable prejudice that justified prohibition at this stage. The court said concerns raised about the charges should be considered by the trial judge in light of the evidence at trial.
J. H. sought prohibition or an injunction to prevent the Director of Public Prosecutions from continuing criminal proceedings before Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court. The charges concern allegations by two complainants. The court’s judgment does not determine whether the alleged offences occurred or whether the applicant is guilty.
The application was heard on 1 and 2 March 2016. The DPP had objected that the judicial review application was out of time. The judge extended the time limit, relying on a sworn affidavit explaining the delay.
On prosecutorial delay, the judge identified eight months of culpable delay between February 2012 and 16 March 2013, when the DPP sought further information from the State Solicitor for County Louth. The court found no consequential prejudice from that delay, noting that the applicant had been interviewed in July 2011 and questioned in detail about the allegations.
The judgment also addressed delays between alleged offences and formal complaints to gardaí. It applied the test of whether delay created a real or serious risk of an unfair trial, focusing on the consequences of delay rather than the reasons for making a complaint.
Two charges concerning the second complainant relate to alleged indecent assaults between 1 November and 31 December 1987, at a location where the applicant was employed in a position of authority. The applicant argued that changes to the building’s layout made it impossible to demonstrate how the alleged events could have occurred as described. The judge said this was not a sustainable basis to prohibit the trial, noting that the building was public and that the applicant had not linked the witnesses he said were unavailable to those allegations.
Seven charges concerning the first complainant relate to alleged events between 1 October 1972 and 30 June 1973 at three locations. The judge accepted that the applicant had raised the possibility of actual prejudice. However, the court said such concerns were better assessed during the trial, when the evidence would be available. The trial judge would have to consider general and specific prejudice and could, in an appropriate case, withdraw the matter from the jury.
The High Court therefore refused prohibition and injunctive relief. It did not decide the criminal charges or direct that the trial be halted.