The Supreme Court has refused to stop the prosecution of a former swimming coach on 16 charges of indecent assault and three charges of rape arising from alleged abuse of a schoolgirl in the 1970s.
The applicant, identified as DO’R, argued that the passage of more than 20 years and extensive publicity about his previous sexual offence convictions meant he could not receive a fair trial.
The complainant attended a boarding school from 1971 to 1977 and was a talented swimmer coached by the applicant. She alleged that repeated sexual abuse took place between 1975 and 1977. The applicant later told Gardaí that much of her factual account was accurate and acknowledged having sexual intercourse with her, although the judgment stressed that issues including consent remained matters for trial.
The complainant did not make a formal Garda statement until August 1999. The Supreme Court considered evidence that the applicant had occupied a position of trust, exercised significant control over her swimming and personal life and had become a surrogate father figure.
Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness held that the correct question was not simply whether the delay was reasonable. The court had to consider whether the complainant had been inhibited from complaining by conduct attributable to the applicant. On the evidence, the court found that she had remained psychologically unable to make a complaint until 1998 or 1999 because of the controlling nature of the relationship.
The court found no specific evidential prejudice caused by the passage of time. The alleged incidents occurred in private, both parties retained detailed memories and no identified independent evidence had been lost.
The court accepted that publicity surrounding the applicant’s earlier convictions was damaging, including inaccurate reports describing him as a rapist. However, much of that material was several years old. Jury selection procedures and strong judicial directions could address the risk.
The applicant therefore failed to establish a real, serious and unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. The appeal was dismissed.