The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by an anonymised appellant who sought to prevent a prosecution on 105 charges of historical sexual abuse. The court held that the appellant had not shown a real risk of an unfair trial or exceptional circumstances making it unfair to put him on trial.
The charges allege indecent assaults on a male relative between 1971 and 1982, when the complainant was aged between six and 18. The alleged incidents are said to have occurred in the appellant’s home, in motor vehicles and at business premises, as well as at unidentified gateways within a District Court area. The allegations have not been tried in these proceedings.
The appellant argued that the passage of 36 to 47 years had prejudiced his defence. He cited the deaths of family members, unavailable or absent former employees, missing vehicle records and uncertainty about locations. He also argued that the delay itself made a fair trial impossible.
Delivering judgment on 21 January 2020, Ms Justice Donnelly said the length of delay did not by itself make a trial unfair. She noted that the appellant had not identified what his deceased relatives could have said, and that he had not specified what relevant evidence the unavailable employees might provide. Two former employees had made statements, and issues about the others could be considered at trial.
The court also rejected the vehicle-record argument. The judgment noted that the appellant had acknowledged in interviews owning several cars, including a Mini and a car with a particular stripe, and that former employees had identified cars he owned. Any dispute about the precise vehicles or the complainant’s account could be tested by cross-examination. The court said the unidentified gateway locations could also be addressed by the trial judge.
The High Court had refused an injunction and related judicial-review relief, after finding the application was two months out of time. The Court of Appeal did not resolve an apparent tension between earlier decisions about when the time limit began, because it rejected the appeal on its substantive grounds.
The judgment noted that fairness concerns arising from delay can often be assessed by the criminal trial court in light of the evidence actually presented. The Court of Appeal’s order dismisses this appeal; it does not determine guilt or innocence, and the prosecution was not halted.