The High Court has prohibited the prosecution of a retired health care worker charged with indecently assaulting a former child in care, ruling that a long delay in reporting the allegations breached the accused’s right to a trial with reasonable expedition.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Quirke on 18 January 2005, concerned allegations of offences on five unidentified dates between 13 May 1984 and 14 December 1988. The complainant, identified as M.H., reported them to gardaí on 21 April 1998. The accused was charged in June 2001 and returned for trial in Galway Circuit Court that October.
The High Court found that the accused had exercised dominion over M.H. during the first four years after the alleged offences, which the court accepted could account for that part of the delay. But it found no evidence of such inhibition during the following ten years, from 1988 to 1998. The court said no adequate explanation had emerged for M.H.’s inaction during that period and concluded the breach of the accused’s right had not been displaced by conduct attributable to him.
The accused also argued that delays by the prosecuting authorities and the court process were excessive. The judge found the three-and-a-half years between the complaint and the return for trial was inordinate and required explanation, but said it had been adequately explained and did not amount to culpable prosecutorial delay. A further period of more than 15 months before the trial listing was excessive and not entirely satisfactorily explained. The trial, listed for 28 January 2003, was adjourned after M.H. failed to attend because of a communication failure.
The court separately extended the time for bringing the judicial review. It accepted that the applicant had followed a then-existing court practice of seeking to challenge delay shortly before trial, and had applied for relief as soon as reasonably possible after that practice ended.
The accused cited the death of his grandmother, the loss of a sleeping bag used on camping trips, uncertainty about the layout of a bathing area, and unavailable evidence about motorcycle purchases as specific prejudice. The judge said those claims did not establish specific prejudice grave enough, on its own, to warrant prohibiting the trial.
The relief was granted because the court found a clear breach of the constitutional right to an expeditious trial, not vitiated by the accused’s conduct, and resulting presumptive prejudice to his ability to defend himself. The ruling addressed the judicial review application; the judgment did not determine the truth of the criminal allegations.