The High Court has refused Maurice Connolly’s application to stop his prosecution on seven indecent assault charges, finding that neither prosecutorial delay nor the circumstances of the case justified halting the trial.
Mr Justice McCarthy gave judgment on 2 December 2009. The prosecution was pending before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court under bill number DU401/07. The charges concerned alleged offences between 1 December 1967 and 1969; three earlier charges concerning alleged events from June 1966 to December 1967 had been withdrawn in March 2007.
The complainant, Bernadette Frost, alleged that assaults took place at 15A Bulfin Road while Mr Connolly was living there as a curate. The court reviewed evidence and submissions about medical records, disclosure, the investigation and the loss or unavailability of potential witnesses. It did not determine whether the alleged offences occurred.
Mr Connolly argued that prosecution disclosure was late and that further inquiries should have been made about psychiatric treatment and records. The judge found that correspondence with St James’ Hospital should have been disclosed earlier, but it only confirmed that records were unavailable. Further Garda inquiries found no records and did not establish that Mr Connolly had received treatment at the hospital. The judge considered the possible relevance of missing records speculative and concluded that the investigation duty had been met.
The judgment also considered Mr Connolly’s claim that delay had caused stress and harmed his health. The judge accepted that he was particularly vulnerable to stress and that proceedings could worsen his health, but found no evidence establishing that delay had caused a deterioration. He concluded that there had not been significant, blameworthy prosecutorial delay and that the requirements for relief on that basis were not met.
The court separately considered whether wholly exceptional circumstances made it unfair or unjust to proceed. It addressed unavailable witnesses and the absence of psychiatric records, but found no real or serious risk of an unfair trial. The judge said other available evidence could address relevant questions and that the missing witnesses did not, on the facts, make a trial unfair.
The application was for prohibition or an injunction restraining the prosecution. The High Court refused the relief sought. It did not decide the criminal charges, which remained for trial.