The Supreme Court has dismissed H.’s appeal against a High Court order refusing to stop two sets of prosecutions for alleged indecent assaults said to have occurred in the mid-1960s. The Court concluded that the delay had not created a real or serious risk of an unfair trial and found no wholly exceptional circumstances making it unfair to proceed.
The prosecutions concern allegations by four former pupils who said they were between seven and 10 when they were abused while in the care of H., then a teacher at a Dublin school. One prosecution covers 48 charges relating to J.M., S.F. and E.B.; a second covers two charges relating to L.W. The alleged offences are under section 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The allegations remain for trial; the Supreme Court did not determine their truth.
H. sought injunctions restraining further prosecution, arguing that the long interval between the alleged events and the proposed trials created a real or substantial risk of an unfair trial. The High Court refused that relief on 7 July 2004. It accepted the complainants’ explanations for the delay and found no sufficient prejudice to prevent a fair trial. It also found no prosecutorial delay arising from an alleged approach to Gardaí by J.M.’s mother when he was a child, concluding that no formal complaint leading to a criminal investigation had been made or entertained at that time.
The Supreme Court reviewed the legal principles for applications to stop prosecutions in delayed child sexual abuse cases. It held that courts generally need not investigate why a complaint was delayed. The central question is whether the delay has prejudiced the accused enough to create a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. The Court said the assessment depends on the circumstances of each case and left room for wholly exceptional cases where proceeding would be unfair or unjust.
The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, finding that the delay had not caused the required level of prejudice. It also held that the number of complaints may be relevant when deciding whether to grant relief. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the prosecutions able to proceed; the judgment did not decide the criminal charges.