The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by J.T. to stop his trial on 104 charges of indecent assault, affirming the High Court order that refused his application to prohibit the prosecution.
The charges concern alleged offences against pupils at a national school between 1969 and 1972. J.T., a former Christian Brother, was initially charged in relation to 16 complainants; one has since died. The judgment records that three complainants were taught by him in fifth class in 1970–71, 11 in 1971–72, and another alleged an assault on the school playing field.
J.T. argued that the long passage of time, delays by the prosecution, missing school rolls, deaths of witnesses, memory problems and adverse media coverage made a fair trial impossible. He also relied on a finding that some information published by the media had come from members of An Garda Síochána.
The Supreme Court accepted that at least some information had been leaked by Garda members, but said most of the information in the articles came from complainants or people speaking on their behalf. It found the publications, which had appeared several years earlier, did not create a real risk of an unfair trial. The court said it was not a disciplinary tribunal, while noting that the leakage could still be subject to an internal inquiry or disciplinary action. It also affirmed the High Court finding that Detective Garda Maloney was not personally responsible for passing information to the media.
The court described the delay in the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office between April 2003 and November 2004 as unexplained, unreasonable and inexcusable. It said the delay was effectively more than 12 months, allowing for the time such a case would normally take to process, but found it did not warrant stopping the trial. The judgment said this should not be taken as an endorsement of the delay, which was contrary to best practice.
The court also upheld the High Court’s assessment that the deaths of Brothers B. and D. were not sufficiently prejudicial to justify an injunction. It found the absence of some school rolls and J.T.’s limited recollection of complainants did not establish the required prejudice. Although there was evidence of stress and anxiety, the court noted there was no medical report before it.
Considering the factors together, the Supreme Court found no real risk of an unfair trial that could not be avoided through appropriate rulings and directions by the trial judge. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order refusing to prohibit the trial. The decision concerned whether the prosecution could proceed; it did not determine the charges, which remained for trial.