The High Court has refused an application by J. C. to prohibit his trial on charges of rape and indecent assault alleged to have occurred between 1969 and 1973. The court found he had not shown that the passage of time and the loss of potential witnesses and medical records created a probability of a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial.
J. C., who had pleaded not guilty, was charged in May 2007. The complaints by three complainants were made to gardaí in October and November 2004. His application relied on the death or unavailability of witnesses and missing medical records. He had initially raised prosecutorial delay and alleged blackmail, but did not pursue those grounds. He also referred to health difficulties as context, not as a separate ground for relief.
The alleged incidents were said to have taken place at an office in Dublin, at the home J. C. shared with his mother, and, in one complainant’s account, on holidays abroad. The complainants’ accounts and J. C.’s responses were set out in the judgment as allegations and affidavit evidence; the application did not determine the criminal charges.
For one complainant, JN, J. C. argued that the death of his mother deprived him of evidence about events alleged to have occurred in the family home. He also cited unavailable psychiatric and hospital records relating to JN. The prosecution said the records could not be located. A teacher, Ms. F, whom JN said had spoken to his mother about a holiday, was available to attend the trial.
For another complainant, GN, the application concerned the absence of two deceased women who had occupied the office building. J. C. said they might have provided evidence about whether its entrance could be latched as GN described. The prosecution disputed that their evidence would establish the point. For the third complainant, JO’T, J. C. relied on the death of M, to whom she said she had disclosed the alleged abuse and the birth of her child. The prosecution described the suggested evidence from M as speculative.
Justice Michael Peart considered the alleged prejudice separately for each complainant and cumulatively. He concluded that the missing records and the possible evidence of unavailable witnesses were speculative or of limited relevance to the trial. The applicant was not confined to those potential sources in challenging credibility, and the issues concerning the home could be explored in cross-examination.
The judge said the trial judge could warn the jury to assess the evidence carefully given the time elapsed, and to consider each complainant’s evidence separately. He held that J. C. had not established a probability of a real risk of an unfair trial and refused the reliefs sought. The judgment concerned only the application to prohibit the trial; it did not decide whether the charges were proved.