Judgment: 2005-12-16 · Court archive

High Court restrains two historic abuse charges but allows others to proceed

High Court, Judicial Review · [2005] IEHC 436

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • T.C. (Applicant)
  • H O'L
  • A.F.
  • T.F.
What

High Court restrains two historic abuse charges but allows others to proceed

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

For H O'L, the court found no sufficient legal explanation. She was 29 when she complained and about 11 years had passed since she reached adulthood. A psychologist considered it doubtful that her delay could be attributed to T.C.'s alleged conduct. The judge found no evidence of a disability or psychological condition that adequately explained why she could not have complained earlier.

By Owen Reid

The High Court has restrained the prosecution of two historic sexual-offence allegations against T.C. involving one complainant, while rejecting his attempt to prevent trial on allegations made by two other related women.

T.C. faced charges arising from alleged offences between 1985 and 1992 against three complainants, identified as H O'L, A.F. and T.F. The complainants were aged between eight and 13 at the relevant times, while T.C. was aged between 14 and 22.

All three made complaints to Gardaí in 2002. T.C. sought judicial review, arguing that the long delay had infringed his right to a trial with due expedition and created an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.

Mr Justice Clarke accepted that the reporting delay was inordinate in all three cases but considered separately whether it had been adequately explained.

For H O'L, the court found no sufficient legal explanation. She was 29 when she complained and about 11 years had passed since she reached adulthood. A psychologist considered it doubtful that her delay could be attributed to T.C.'s alleged conduct. The judge found no evidence of a disability or psychological condition that adequately explained why she could not have complained earlier.

The position was different for A.F. and T.F. The court accepted evidence that, assuming their allegations were true solely for the purpose of analysing delay, their experiences and surrounding circumstances had contributed materially to psychological inhibition against reporting. A.F. complained aged 24 and T.F. aged 22.

Clarke J found no specific trial prejudice beyond the general difficulties inherent in prosecuting old allegations. He also rejected a separate claim of prosecutorial delay, accepting evidence that Gardaí had experienced significant difficulty locating and interviewing potential witnesses before completing their investigation file in September 2003.

The court therefore granted relief only in relation to the rape and indecent-assault allegations involving H O'L. The judgment did not prevent the remaining charges concerning A.F. and T.F. from proceeding.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review