The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by C. K. seeking to prohibit his trial on charges of indecent assault alleged to have occurred between 1974 and 1978. The court upheld the High Court’s 2004 decision refusing to halt the proceedings, finding that C. K. had not established a real risk of an unfair trial because of the delay. The appeal concerned whether the trial could proceed, not whether the allegations were true. C. K. denies the charges.
The complainant, who was aged between eight and 12 during the alleged offences, first approached a garda about making a complaint in May 2000. C. K. was charged in August 2001 and returned for trial in November that year. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 31 January 2007, said the alleged offences took place while the complainant and C. K. lived as neighbours. The complainant’s account included alleged assaults while babysitting, in a van and in a field. These remain allegations.
C. K. argued that the passage of time had deprived him of evidence needed for his defence. He cited the death of a family doctor and the complainant’s grandmother, the loss of records relating to a van, and the death of the field’s owner. He said the doctor could have addressed allegations that he beat his wife, and that the grandmother could have given evidence about babysitting arrangements. He also disputed owning a blue van during the period and said an earlier van had been destroyed by fire.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the claimed prejudice was not established. The judgment noted that the complainant had not identified the van’s colour, that accounts about the van conflicted, and that C. K. had told gardaí in April 2001 that he had a blue van during the relevant period. The court said the issue could be explored at trial. It also found no evidence that C. K.’s wife had consulted the deceased doctor during the relevant years, or that the field was locked and accessible only with the owner’s permission.
Applying the approach set out in an earlier Supreme Court decision, the court said an applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that delay creates a real risk of an unfair trial, and that the prejudice cannot be overcome by directions or warnings from the trial judge. It concluded that C. K. had not met that evidential burden. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s refusal to prohibit the trial in place.