The Court of Appeal has granted T.C. leave to seek judicial review of the prosecution against him on 100 indecent assault charges involving ten complainants, all described in the judgment as his nieces and nephews. The court extended the time for bringing the application, which was nine days late, and directed that any judicial review proceedings be managed actively and heard as soon as possible.
The appeal was from a High Court decision refusing leave. T.C. argued that delays in complaints and prosecution meant he could not receive a fair trial, and that the death of potential witnesses, including his mother, had left him at a disadvantage. These remain his claims; the appeal court did not determine whether he had suffered prejudice or whether a trial would be unfair.
The allegations are said to span 1964 to 1984. The judgment says the K complainants came forward in 2011, about 30 years after the alleged incidents involving them. T.C. was arrested and questioned that May, denied the allegations, and was not prosecuted then. The H complainants came forward in 2014. The judgment also records that issues concerning the H group appear to have been discussed at a family meeting in 2003. T.C. was interviewed again in September 2015 and denied all allegations. He was charged in December 2015 and returned for trial on 10 February 2016.
The High Court had found the judicial review application out of time and saw no sufficient reason to extend the deadline. It also concluded that the required grounds for leave had not been shown, reasoning that allowing the application could permanently prevent the complainants from having their allegations tested in a criminal court. The Director of Public Prosecutions neither consented to nor opposed leave in the High Court and did not otherwise take an active part, according to the appeal judgment.
The Court of Appeal considered the application only at the leave stage. It held that the appropriate threshold was arguability, not the higher test of substantial grounds, and found that threshold met. It cited the exceptionally long period since the earliest alleged offence, the interval before prosecution of the K allegations, the 2003 family meeting concerning the H allegations and T.C.'s claim of specific prejudice. The court stressed that prohibition of a criminal trial is exceptional and that the arguments against T.C.'s case might still prevail.
The appeal court did not prohibit the criminal trial or rule on the truth of the allegations. It extended time and granted leave for judicial review, with a view to an early determination. It said the criminal case should be listed for trial at an early date if the review's outcome meant a trial could and should proceed.