The High Court has dismissed an application to prohibit a man’s trial on a charge of sexual assault, ruling that the absence of the identities of people linked to two earlier alleged incidents did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Noonan on 24 July 2015, concerned a charge that the applicant sexually assaulted a woman during a massage on 19 August 2011 at a therapy centre on Westmoreland Row, Dublin. The charge is to be tried in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The allegation has not been determined in that trial.
The complainant told gardaí that, as a child, she had experienced two earlier alleged sexual assaults. She declined to identify the men involved and did not make formal complaints about either incident. The prosecution provided statements and counselling notes it had obtained. It said gardaí were not pursuing efforts to identify the men because there was no formal complaint against a named person.
The applicant argued that access to the men’s identities could allow his solicitors to interview them and potentially find evidence undermining the complainant’s credibility. He sought to stop the trial on the basis that he could not receive a fair hearing. The Director of Public Prosecutions objected that the judicial review application was out of time and said the applicant had not shown that the missing identities created a real risk of unfairness.
The court first rejected the delay objection. Although the issue had arisen in November 2013, the judge considered it reasonable for the applicant to await confirmation that the prosecution would proceed after his solicitors requested it. The court enlarged the time for bringing the judicial review application.
On the substance, the judge held that the applicant’s proposed line of inquiry depended on speculation: the men might not agree to interviews, and any interview would not necessarily produce evidence useful to the defence. The applicant remained free to challenge the complainant’s credibility at trial, the judge said.
The court also noted that the prosecution case included evidence beyond the complainant’s account, including CCTV said to show the pair outside a nearby shop and alleged admissions in garda interviews. These matters remain for determination at trial. The judge found no prosecution failure to disclose evidence and said any trial fairness issues could be addressed by the trial judge through rulings and directions.
The High Court dismissed the application. It did not decide the sexual assault charge or make a finding on the truth of the allegations.