The Supreme Court has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against a High Court order that barred further prosecution of P.H. on 114 charges alleging sexual abuse of two stepdaughters. It refused the relief P.H. had sought, concluding that the evidence available from other sources was sufficient to avoid finding a real or serious risk of an unfair trial at that stage.
The charges alleged rape or indecent assault of H. between 1978 and 1986, and indecent assault of F. between 1981 and 1989. The judgment describes the alleged victims as aged between three and a half and 12 during the relevant periods. These are allegations; the appeal concerned whether prosecution could proceed, not whether P.H. was guilty.
P.H. argued that the death of B.M., a district nurse who had attended the family, seriously weakened his ability to defend himself. The alleged abuse was said to have caused physical symptoms, while the nurse’s notes were unavailable. In High Court evidence, P.H. said she visited two or three times a week and took the children individually into a room. The judgment noted that this account had not been challenged, while also observing that the nurse’s role had been described in greater detail over time. The court did not determine whether she had examined the children or what she would have said.
The Director accepted that the nurse’s death had some significance but argued that the substance of her likely evidence could be supplied by other witnesses. The judgment referred to evidence from two doctors, the children’s mother and, if he testified, P.H. It said their evidence would be that no abuse complaint had been made to them and that they had not noticed symptoms consistent with abuse. The court described this as the probable effect of the nurse’s evidence too, while acknowledging that her evidence might have been more significant if she had visited as frequently as alleged or examined the children.
The court held that the likely availability of at least the essence of the nurse’s evidence from other sources was enough to avoid the inference of a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. It cautioned that the position could change if the Director later challenged the reliability or significance of that substitute evidence. The trial judge, if the case proceeded, could address that issue. The judgment did not decide the truth of the charges or order an acquittal; it allowed the appeal and refused the requested bar on prosecution.