The High Court has refused an application by M.H. to prohibit his trial on four counts of indecent assault alleged to have occurred in 1972 and 1973. The charges remain before the Circuit Criminal Court. Mr Justice MacGrath held that M.H. had not shown a particular prejudice that could not be addressed by the trial judge, or exceptional circumstances warranting intervention.
The complainant told gardaí in statements made in 2015 and 2016 that M.H., who was his sports coach, assaulted him on four occasions when he was aged between nine and 11. The alleged incidents took place while the two were alone in a sports club clubhouse. These are allegations; the High Court did not determine whether they were true.
M.H. sought judicial review, arguing that the passage of about 43 years, delays after the complaint, unavailable potential witnesses, demolition of the clubhouse and his health and memory problems would prevent a fair trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, saying the investigation timeline was explained and that the claimed loss of witnesses and building evidence had not been linked to specific material that could assist the defence.
The judge found no blameworthy prosecutorial delay. He accepted that the investigation involved further enquiries, including obtaining counselling records and examining a report that a third party had approached the complainant in an effort to “sort the matter out”. The judge said the third party’s approach appeared not to have been at M.H.’s request, but still required investigation. He considered the time between the first complaint and the return for trial satisfactorily explained.
On the missing witnesses and demolished building, the judge said M.H. had not shown how the unavailable people could have given relevant evidence or identified material evidence that an inspection of the building might have produced. The concerns, he said, could be considered by the trial judge through appropriate rulings, warnings or directions.
Medical reports described cognitive impairment and an early dementia process, while also recording that M.H. could instruct his solicitor. The judge concluded that the reports expressed possible effects on his memory and ability to defend himself, but did not establish a present real risk of an unfair trial. He said the trial judge would be better placed to assess M.H.’s health and capacity at the time of trial, and noted that the position could change.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not halt or decide the criminal trial; questions of fairness, evidence and fitness to stand trial remain for the trial court under the applicable procedures.