The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by P. L. and ordered that his trial on charges relating to one complainant be prohibited, concluding that the loss of a classroom desk created a real risk he could not receive a fair trial. The judgment was delivered on 20 December 2004. The court’s judges gave different reasons on whether the length of the delay also warranted prohibition.
P. L., a member of a religious community, was charged in January 1999 with 20 sexual assault offences alleged to have occurred between 1965 and 1968, involving three boys aged 11 to 13. He denied the allegations. The High Court had already prohibited trial on charges involving two complainants, identified as LB and PL. The respondents did not appeal those orders, so the Supreme Court appeal concerned the charges involving BL.
The allegations involving BL included abuse during stamp-collection classes at a primary school where P. L. taught. BL said the desk where the incidents allegedly occurred was enclosed at the front and sides. P. L. disputed that description, saying the desk had an opening at the front. The judgment said the desk was no longer available. Its structure could matter to BL’s account of what was visible to the class and whether the alleged conduct could have occurred as described. The judgment also noted a dispute over whether the stamp classes were held on Fridays or Saturday mornings, which could bear on P. L.’s account that he often played golf on Saturdays.
The alleged offences were reported decades later. BL first made a formal complaint to gardaí in August 1997, and charges followed in January 1999. In the High Court, Herbert J found that the delay was explicable, including because of the complainant’s circumstances and the effects attributed to the alleged abuse. Fennelly J disagreed that the evidence adequately explained a delay of more than 30 years. He said cogent evidence linking the delay to the alleged abuse was required, and considered that the High Court had not been justified in finding the delay adequately explained.
Fennelly J agreed with Hardiman J that the unavailable desk created a real risk of an unfair trial. He also agreed that the appeal should be allowed and prohibition ordered, but differed from Hardiman J on the legal basis: Fennelly J considered that the delay, on its own, could not support the order under the applicable approach to delayed prosecutions of alleged child sexual abuse. The operative result was that the appeal was allowed and the trial on the charges involving BL was prohibited; the judgment did not determine whether the allegations were true.