The High Court has refused an application by an anonymised applicant to stop the Director of Public Prosecutions from prosecuting him on 105 charges of historical sexual abuse. The court declined to extend the time for bringing the judicial review and said the application would have failed on its merits in any event.
The charges concern alleged abuse between 1971 and 1982 against a relative who was aged between six and 18 during the period. The complainant alleged that incidents occurred at the applicant’s home, in motor vehicles and at outdoor locations. The applicant denied the allegations. The judgment did not determine whether any offence occurred; the criminal trial was pending.
The applicant argued that the passage of time risked an unfair trial. His claimed prejudice included uncertainty about the location and dates of some allegations, the deaths of family members who might have given evidence, missing statements from former employees, unavailable business records and difficulty identifying vehicles he owned. He also relied on his health and the time between the alleged offences and the complaint.
The judicial review was brought two months beyond the prescribed three-month period. The court found no good and sufficient reason to extend time. It described the delay in bringing the review as particularly serious, noted that the applicant had been dealing with lawyers during the criminal proceedings, and said he could raise his concerns before the trial judge. It also found no culpable or significant unexplained delay by the DPP or gardaí after the complaint was made.
Although that decision was enough to dispose of the application, the judge addressed the substantive arguments so the full case could be considered on appeal. He found that the applicant had not shown a real risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed by the trial court. On some location details, the complainant had said he did not know the precise place even at the time, so the court found the passage of time had not caused that lack of specificity.
The judge also considered the missing witnesses and records, the vehicle evidence and the health claim. He concluded that the claimed prejudice had not been established to the required standard, and that the health evidence did not justify prohibiting the prosecution. The court emphasised that the trial judge could address fairness as evidence emerged, including through appropriate directions or other measures.
The court refused an extension of time and refused all reliefs sought, including the orders that would have restrained the prosecution or quashed the District Court order sending the applicant forward for trial. It did not rule on the applicant’s guilt or the truth of the allegations.