The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a person charged with 14 counts of indecent assault, refusing to prohibit a fourth trial. The Court said the appellant had not shown that another trial would breach his right to due process or be oppressive.
The charges concern alleged offences against a complainant identified in the judgment as LAL. They are said to have occurred in County Waterford between February 1974 and February 1978, beginning when the complainant was eight. The complaint was made in 1999.
The appellant was returned for trial in 2004 and pleaded not guilty. Juries were discharged during three trial sittings in Waterford in 2006 after the trial judge considered evidence given by the complainant inadmissible and prejudicial. The case was later adjourned when a medical certificate said the complainant was unfit to attend.
The appellant sought judicial review to prevent another trial, arguing that a fourth trial would be an abuse of process and breach his constitutional fair-trial rights. He also argued that the complainant could adjust her evidence after earlier trials. The Supreme Court said he had identified no particular unfairness arising from that possibility.
The Court excluded two matters raised on appeal: alleged delay and a November 2002 letter in which the complainant was said to have demanded €5,000 in exchange for dropping her complaint. Neither was included in the grounds for which leave to seek judicial review had been granted. The judgment also noted that the appellant had been aware of the letter before the prosecution and had used it in cross-examination at an earlier trial.
The Court stressed that deciding whether to continue a prosecution is primarily the Director of Public Prosecutions’ responsibility, while courts retain a duty to protect due process. It said it could not assess whether the earlier jury discharges were correct because it had no trial transcripts and the trials had stopped during the complainant’s evidence. The appeal was dismissed; the Court did not determine the appellant’s guilt or innocence.