The Court of Criminal Appeal has rejected an application by Michael Anthony Walsh for leave to appeal his conviction on four counts of indecent assault. It ruled that amendments made to the indictment during the trial caused no identified prejudice and found no basis to complain about the trial judge’s direction to the jury on delay.
A jury convicted Walsh at Dundalk Circuit Court on 24 July 2009. The allegations concerned offences said to have occurred between 25 December 1980 and 20 June 1982, when the complainant was aged between 11 and 13. The trial took place in April 2009. The complainant first complained to gardaí in 1998, according to the trial judge’s direction described in the appeal judgment.
At the end of the prosecution case, the trial judge reduced the indictment from 14 counts to four and amended dates and location descriptions to match the evidence. Walsh argued that the amendments were made too late and that the defence had prepared for the original indictment. The appeal court said the trial judge had power under section 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924 to amend an indictment at any stage, unless the change could not be made without injustice.
The appeal court found that the amendments tracked the complainant’s evidence and that Walsh had identified no actual prejudice. It noted that the defence had not argued that the dates were significant or raised an alibi; its position at trial was that no assault had occurred. The court rejected the challenge to the amendments.
Walsh also sought leave to add a ground arguing that the jury had not been adequately warned about the effects of the long delay. The trial judge had told jurors that the passage of time could make it harder to assemble evidence, locate witnesses, recall events and prepare alibi evidence, and that they could consider delay when assessing the witnesses’ credibility. The appeal court said the direction had been given without objection at trial, and that the allegations were detailed as to place and circumstances. It found no basis for the complaint.
The court rejected the application for leave to appeal. The judgment does not describe a separate appeal decision on the merits of the convictions.