The High Court has refused an application by a retired teacher to stop his trial on 16 charges of indecent assault involving nine former pupils at a Dublin south city primary school. The allegations concern periods between 1968 and 1971.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as P.H., sought judicial review relief including an order prohibiting the prosecution. He argued that the passage of about 50 years, the death or unavailability of potential witnesses, a missing class roll, his age and his health made a fair trial impossible or unjust.
The court applied the test of whether delay created a real or serious risk that the applicant would not receive a fair trial. It said the investigation and proceedings to date had been conducted with reasonable expedition. The charges are pending before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court; this judicial review did not decide whether the allegations were true.
The judge was not satisfied that the deaths of former teachers, school staff, inspectors and others established specific prejudice. The applicant had described how those people might have observed classroom conditions or had knowledge of complaints, but the court said it could only speculate about what most of them might have said. The prosecution had gathered statements from former pupils, including some who said they saw no inappropriate conduct, and identified adult witnesses from the period who remained available.
The court also considered the unavailability of the 1968–69 Class 3C roll book. Gardaí had obtained the roll for the preceding year and a school registration book listing pupils’ classes and school departures. The judge concluded that the investigation had interviewed the identifiable pupils it could locate and that the missing roll did not establish a real or serious risk of an unfair trial.
On health, the applicant was 76 and relied on evidence of significant cardiac illness and the possibility that trial-related stress could adversely affect his prognosis. The judge found no medical evidence that his memory or mental faculties were impaired. The judgment noted that the trial judge would have a continuing duty to ensure fair procedures, including in relation to his capacity to participate.
Considering the factors separately and together, the court found no real or serious risk of an unfair trial and no wholly exceptional circumstances making it unjust to proceed. The application was refused. The criminal charges remain for determination at trial.