The Court of Appeal has dismissed P.F.’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing leave to seek judicial review of the indictment in a pending sexual assault trial. The court held that judicial review was not the appropriate route at that stage and that the proposed challenge was not arguable on the legal principles relied on.
The appeal concerned counts relating to two complainants, identified as H.P. and M.T. The Circuit Court trial also involved a third complainant, identified as F.K., but those allegations were outside this judicial review challenge.
The indictment contained 38 counts. The date ranges for the counts concerning H.P. and M.T. differed substantially from the ranges in the original charges and the complainants’ statements. The prosecution said the indictment reflected the totality of the available evidence, including information about when the complainants and P.F. were at facilities run by the Sisters of Mercy. The defence argued that the revised dates undermined its ability to answer the allegations and made a fair trial impossible.
Before the jury was put in charge, the defence asked the Circuit Court judge to exclude the complainants’ evidence, require a replacement indictment, or halt the trial as an abuse of process. The judge refused those applications, considering them premature and directing the defence towards judicial review. The High Court later refused leave, finding that the issues could be addressed during the trial.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief on the preliminary applications at that point. It said the defence could raise relevant issues once the trial was underway, including applications to exclude evidence, withdraw a case from the jury, adjourn to allow preparation, or separate trials where there was a proper basis. It also rejected the alternative request for declarations about the trial judge’s jurisdiction: the judge’s ruling was limited to the premature applications, and the defence could renew them later.
The court further concluded that the indictment was not prima facie unlawful. It noted that dates were not essential elements of the offences and that the prosecution could frame counts by reference to the overall evidence, rather than only the dates in complainants’ statements. The court found the defence’s claim of irremediable prejudice from the joint trial was not tenable under established legal principles, as directions or other trial measures could address prejudice if a basis arose.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether the alleged offences occurred, whether particular evidence would ultimately be admissible, or whether the trial would be fair in light of evidence as it unfolded.