The High Court has refused an application by an anonymised applicant to prohibit two Limerick Circuit Court trials involving a total of 251 counts of indecent assault. The application was brought five days before the scheduled trial date.
The charges concern allegations by 17 complainants about events said to have occurred between 1978 and 1981, when the applicant was teaching pupils at a Limerick school. The applicant denied the allegations and argued that the delay in bringing the cases created a real risk of an unfair trial. He also submitted that his age, health and the loss or unavailability of witnesses made it unfair to put him on trial.
The court found that the investigation was complex and detailed, involving efforts to trace former pupils and take statements. It concluded that the chronology did not show blameworthy prosecutorial delay. The judge said some delay had also occurred while both sides awaited a Supreme Court decision on the legal status of buggery, an offence included in the initial proceedings.
The applicant pointed to the death of a former school principal and a teacher, and to missing counselling witnesses and destroyed records. The court noted that two people said to have been present when a complaint was made were witnesses in the case. It also accepted evidence that the deceased teacher was not at the school during the relevant years. The judge said the absent doctor’s evidence appeared more likely to have assisted the prosecution, while claims about what the missing counsellors might have contributed to the defence were speculative.
The applicant, then 71, relied on medical evidence describing chronic illnesses, depression, anxiety and reduced kidney function. The judge said the evidence did not show that he was unable to participate in a trial or that his mental faculties were impaired. The court accepted that trial would cause significant stress but found that neither his health nor his age made a trial unfair or unjust in this case.
The court also declined to treat the applicant’s earlier trials on separate Dublin charges, acquittals and time spent in custody as exceptional circumstances requiring prohibition. The judge said the present application had been brought only days before a complex trial was due to begin and criticised the timing of the challenge.
The High Court refused the application for judicial review. It did not determine the underlying criminal charges; those were to proceed to trial in the Circuit Court.