The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by WC, an anonymised man charged with historic indecent assaults, who sought to stop his prosecution over a dispute about information concerning other alleged abuse of the complainant.
The appeal concerned 18 charges: eight under section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 and ten under section 10 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981. The allegations relate to incidents said to have occurred between 1975 and 1984, when the complainant was aged between four and 14. WC denied the charges in a garda interview.
The complainant’s unredacted statement referred to other alleged incidents involving family members, two boys in a lane, a neighbour and a man at a party in England. She provided some medical records and three further statements, but later said she did not want to name certain people or provide further details about those incidents. The judgment said it was not established whether additional counselling or medical records existed.
The High Court had stayed the prosecution unless the complainant disclosed requested names and details within four months, after which the prosecution would be permanently halted. The Court of Appeal overturned that order and dismissed WC’s judicial review application. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court.
Delivering the Supreme Court’s judgment on 24 October 2024, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said disclosure and trial fairness were primarily matters for the trial judge, including at a preliminary hearing. Judicial review to stop a trial over disclosure would be appropriate only in the clearest cases, where the accused showed that any unfairness could not realistically be remedied by the trial judge.
The Court said the prosecution must reasonably disclose material in its possession that could assist the defence, subject to statutory protections and considerations including relevance, remoteness and witnesses’ privacy. It also explained that prior sexual experience is subject to statutory restrictions, and that counselling records are governed by a specific application process and criteria under section 19A of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992.
The judgment did not decide whether further information or records should be disclosed at the criminal trial, nor whether WC is guilty. Those questions remain for the trial judge under the applicable rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the judicial review application in place.