The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by M.M. against the High Court’s refusal to stop his prosecution for alleged indecent assaults on two schoolboys in the early 1970s. The court found that M.M. had not shown either that it would be unfair to put him on trial or that there was a real and substantial risk of an unfair trial. The charges will be for a jury to resolve, with the trial judge responsible for ensuring the trial is fair.
The prosecution concerns 29 charges relating to M.W., alleged to have occurred between December 1970 and June 1971, and 32 charges relating to P.G., alleged to have occurred between March 1971 and June 1972. The judgment describes M.M. as a Marist Brother who taught at a school in the west of Ireland. The alleged offences are contrary to section 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
M.M.’s judicial review application relied on delay and claimed prejudice to his defence. After a 2006 Supreme Court decision changed the approach to delay in this type of case, the appeal proceeded on prejudice. The court said it was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the prosecution authorities had acted blameworthily. It also found no operative prejudice from memory concerns. The judgment noted that M.M. had not put M.W.’s account in issue in these proceedings.
The court considered admissions M.M. made during a 1999 interview. It described his account concerning P.G. as a full admission of indecent assault, and his response concerning M.W. as a partial admission: he said he could not remember M.W. but accepted the allegations might have happened. The court said the case involved background matters that could be tested through cross-examination and was not merely one person’s word against another’s.
M.M. had previously served a 12-year sentence, reduced on appeal from 18 years, for sexual offences involving a different complainant. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the case background, including the timing of those earlier proceedings, could be considered when sentencing if M.M. is convicted. It did not determine guilt or sentence in this appeal.