By Ruth Mercer
The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of an elderly man on 20 historic sexual offence charges arising from allegations said to have occurred in County Dublin between 1976 and 1984.
M.M. faced 19 counts of indecent assault and one count of buggery involving a complainant who was aged between seven and 15 during the alleged offences. M.M., the boy's grand-uncle by marriage, denied the allegations and sought a court order preventing the DPP from taking the case any further.
His challenge centred on the passage of time. The complainant did not make a formal Garda complaint until January 2001, about 17 years after the alleged abuse ended. M.M. also relied on the death of his wife in November 2002, his age and health, the breadth of the dates in the charges and alleged delays in the Garda investigation.
Mrs Justice Macken accepted that the lapse of time was very long. However, she found that the delay by the complainant was sufficiently explained on the evidence before the court.
The complainant said he had been unable to speak about the alleged abuse for years. He first disclosed it to a counsellor in 1997 and later told his father in 2000. A psychologist gave evidence that the delayed complaint was linked to the adverse effects of the alleged abuse. The judge accepted that evidence for the purposes of the judicial review application, without deciding whether the allegations themselves were true.
The court also found some additional delay in the Garda investigation but held that it had not been shown to create a real and serious risk of an unfair trial.
M.M. argued that his late wife could have helped establish when he was in Ireland while working in England. The judge found that her absence did not amount to sufficient specific prejudice, noting that other evidence could potentially address his movements.
His age, declining health and the reduced geographical detail in the charges were also insufficient to halt the case. Those matters could, where appropriate, be dealt with by the trial judge.
The application for prohibition was therefore refused, leaving the criminal prosecution to proceed.