The High Court has prohibited the Director of Public Prosecutions from pursuing 21 of the 34 charges against an anonymised applicant accused of assaults at an industrial school in Co Galway. The court allowed 13 counts to proceed.
In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2005, Mr Justice Murphy ruled that vague time periods and unexplained delays in making five complaints justified prohibition. The case was a judicial review of the proposed prosecution on Bill No. 1172/99.
The charges concerned 10 complainants and alleged incidents between 1970 and 1994. The applicant argued that the long delays had impaired the defence, including through the deaths of potential witnesses and loss of records. The applicant also alleged that Western Health Board employees had improperly influenced the investigation.
The DPP disputed those claims, saying the Gardaí had independently conducted the criminal investigation and that the applicant had not established prejudice sufficient to make a fair trial impossible. The DPP also argued the judicial review had been brought too late. The judge found that the Gardaí’s account of an independent investigation had not been rebutted and declined to decide the merits of the allegations about Health Board personnel, which he said were matters for the trial judge and jury.
The court was not satisfied that the deaths of potential witnesses established prejudice: there was no evidence they were the only people able to testify. It also found that media coverage appeared adverse to the institution and religious order, rather than naming the applicant, and that publicity was not a ground for which leave had been granted.
The judge identified substantial delays in four complaints, ranging from 11 to 24 years, and said no evidence had explained the delay or vagueness in timing. He held that delay alone did not necessarily justify stopping a prosecution, but that the combination of vague dates and unexplained delay in those complaints did.
The resulting order prohibited further prosecution on charges arising from complaints by S.C., J.D., G.T., P.G. and J.B. The court refused prohibition for complaints by K.S., J.C., P.H. and B.C.H. It recorded that the DPP had already decided not to proceed on a count relating to a seventh complainant, named in the judgment as William Larkin. The final order left counts 9–13, 15–17 and 20–34 in Bill No. 1172/99 outside the prohibition.