The High Court has halted the prosecution of an anonymised former curate on two indecent assault charges arising from an alleged incident involving a youth in January 1988.
The applicant, identified as JF, denied the allegations. The complainant, who was almost 18 at the time, did not report the alleged incident to gardaí until September 2000, more than 12 years later.
The complainant alleged that after a wedding reception the applicant gave him a lift, sexually assaulted him in the car and later brought him to a local pub. He also alleged that the applicant threatened him against disclosing what had happened. The applicant denied the indecent assaults and denied being in the pub that evening.
Mr Justice Michael Peart considered whether the passage of time made a fair prosecution impossible or otherwise unjust. He rejected one claimed source of practical prejudice. A woman who had usually been in charge of the pub had since died, but the judge found that any evidence she might have given about whether she saw the two men there was too speculative and peripheral to justify stopping the case.
The decisive issue was instead the overall delay.
The complainant said he had initially been afraid of the applicant while the priest remained in the parish. The judge regarded that as capable of explaining the earlier period. However, after the applicant left in 1996, the complainant wrote saying he was no longer afraid and intended to go to the gardaí. He nevertheless waited about another three years before making his complaint.
Peart J found that this further period had not been adequately explained. The complainant had also said in evidence that he wanted the applicant to suffer for what he alleged had happened.
Balancing the public interest in prosecuting alleged offences against the applicant’s right to a reasonably prompt process, the judge concluded that the delay had created unacceptable oppression and unfairness.
An injunction was granted restraining the DPP from taking any further steps on the two charges.