The High Court has refused an application to permanently stop the prosecution of a former Christian Brother facing 104 charges of indecent assault, allegedly committed against former pupils between September 1969 and June 1972. The applicant denies the charges. The court’s ruling concerned whether the prosecution could proceed; it did not determine guilt or innocence.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2007, Mr Justice Hanna found that the Garda investigation, which ran until April 2003, had proceeded with reasonable dispatch. The investigation involved locating former pupils, taking statements and examining incomplete school records. Further allegations emerged during that work, and the judge accepted that they had to be investigated.
The judge reached a different conclusion about the period after the investigation file went to the Director of Public Prosecutions in April 2003. The file remained there until a request for further information was sent in September 2004, and no explanation was given for that interval. Mr Justice Hanna ruled that this was blameworthy prosecutorial delay. He said the delay alone was not enough to stop the trial.
The applicant argued that the passage of time had harmed his ability to defend himself. He pointed to fading memories, incomplete school rolls and the deaths of two Christian Brothers who might have had relevant evidence. The judge found that the applicant had not shown that the missing records or witnesses caused sufficient prejudice. One deceased Brother’s evidence was already included in the book of evidence and was, in the judge’s assessment, largely neutral. The other had died before the events became the subject of the investigation.
The applicant also said he suffered depression, anxiety and media vilification, and alleged that Garda sources had leaked information to newspapers. The judge found that some reporting appeared to have come from a Garda source and described the leaks as reprehensible and grossly irresponsible. However, he said the applicant had not provided medical evidence showing how the stress affected him or his ability to receive a fair trial. The judge also found that the vilification had stopped more than three years earlier and that any remaining trial prejudice could be addressed by the trial judge.
Considering the combined effect of the delay and the alleged prejudice, Mr Justice Hanna concluded that the applicant had not shown a real risk of an unfair trial. He refused the relief sought, leaving the prosecution free to proceed. The applicant’s guilt or innocence remained for a jury to decide.