The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the trial of a 71-year-old man charged with two counts of indecent assault over alleged events in 1974 to 1976. Mr Justice Barr ruled that the applicant had not established a real risk that he would be denied a fair trial. The charges remain due to be heard in the Circuit Criminal Court, with issues about delay and prejudice available to be raised before the trial judge.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as J.T., was charged in June 2021. The complainant, who was aged 12 to 14 at the time alleged, made an initial complaint to gardaí in May 2017. The applicant argued that the delay before that complaint, followed by the investigation and prosecution, meant he would face trial almost 50 years after the alleged events. He also relied on his age and health, the deaths of the complainant’s parents, and counselling records that had not been obtained.
The allegations have not been tried. The judgment records that the first alleged assault involved treatment for a groin strain at a soccer team clubhouse in Dublin. The second was alleged to have occurred during a team trip to County Kerry, while the complainant and applicant shared a sofa bed in a caravan with other boys present. The applicant denied that a fair trial remained possible by seeking prohibition; the court was not deciding whether the charges were true.
The judge accepted the investigating garda’s account of the investigation and found that it was not affected by culpable prosecutorial delay. Gardaí sought statements from former teammates and attempted to obtain club and league records, but those records were unavailable. The judge also accepted that the applicant’s location was difficult to establish and that Garda resources were stretched during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court found that the applicant had not shown that the parents’ evidence would be central to the charges, which concerned alleged assaults at other locations. Some counselling records had been disclosed, and the applicant had not established that outstanding records were likely to be relevant to the issues at trial. The court also noted there was no medical evidence that the applicant’s health had been worsened by the prosecution, or that it prevented him from instructing his lawyers or defending himself.
The court refused the reliefs sought in the applicant’s notice of motion dated 28 January 2022. It did not determine the criminal charges or make a final order on costs. The parties were given two weeks to submit written observations on the final order and costs, and the case was listed for mention on 12 December 2023.