The High Court has refused an application to stop the prosecution of a man facing 160 alleged sexual offences, finding he had not shown that missing evidence created a real risk of an unfair trial.
The case concerns 159 counts of indecent and sexual assault alleged to have occurred between 1981 and 1993, and one count of rape alleged to have occurred in 1987. The complainant is identified in the judgment only as C. The applicant, identified as S. Ó’C., denies the allegations.
The applicant sought injunctive relief to halt the pending prosecution, a declaration that he had not been given a trial with due expedition, and damages. He argued that the passage of time had prejudiced his defence, including through the loss of medical records and the death of a psychiatrist who had treated C. He also alleged that Gardaí had failed to seek and preserve relevant evidence.
The judgment records that C. described a possible miscarriage after stomach pains and bleeding while in the Gaeltacht in 1990 or 1991. No record of that doctor’s attendance was found. The applicant argued the records might have helped test her account. The court considered their possible contents and concluded that none established a real risk of an unfair trial. It also noted that the trial judge would be better placed to rule on the relevance of questions about sexual history.
Records relating to C.’s attendance with psychiatrist Dr Louis O’Carroll could not be found. He died in a road traffic accident in March 2012. The judge accepted that Gardaí had pursued several avenues to locate the records and that it was reasonable to search for them before seeking a statement from him. She found no breach of the duty to seek and preserve evidence.
The judge also held that the applicant had not shown a real possibility that O’Carroll’s unavailable evidence would have revealed a material inconsistency helpful to the defence. Confusion about what C. may have told her GP could be explored in cross-examination and addressed by a trial judge’s warning, the judgment said. The missing psychotherapist notes added little because the therapist had reported that C. did not provide explicit details of the alleged abuse.
The decision addresses whether the delay created a real risk of an unfair trial that could not be avoided through the trial judge’s rulings or directions. It does not determine the criminal charges. The court refused the relief sought, leaving the prosecution to proceed.