The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by P.G. seeking to stop two prosecutions for alleged sexual offences against his niece and nephew. The court affirmed the High Court order refusing an injunction.
The allegations concern offences said to have occurred between 1979 and 1985, when the complainants were children. The niece alleges three rapes and six sexual assaults between June 1980 and June 1985. The nephew alleges two sexual assaults between December 1979 and July 1982. These are allegations, not findings on guilt.
The cases had been returned for trial in September 2001: the niece’s case to the Central Criminal Court and the nephew’s to the Circuit Criminal Court. P.G. sought judicial review on grounds of delay and the State’s failure to obtain clinical notes from professionals who had counselled or treated the complainants. The High Court refused an injunction in June 2004, and P.G. appealed.
On delay, the Supreme Court accepted that reporting had been significantly delayed but found the respondent had adequately explained it. For this part of its analysis, the court assumed the complainants’ accounts were true. It considered their ages, the close family ties, alleged threats and explanations for not reporting sooner. The court said P.G. had not claimed specific prejudice to his defence and rejected the appeal on this ground.
The court separately considered requests for records from an acupuncturist who had referred the niece to a psychologist and from a therapist who had counselled the nephew. The professionals had declined disclosure on confidentiality grounds; the respondent did not possess the notes but had made efforts to obtain them. The niece had consented to disclosure of the acupuncturist’s notes, but the court said there was no evidence she had reported abuse to the acupuncturist. It also noted that the defence had not requested the psychologist’s notes before bringing the judicial review.
For the nephew’s case, the court said the defence would ordinarily be entitled to the therapist’s clinical notes for cross-examination if the prosecution possessed them. It could not direct the respondent, the complainant or the therapist to disclose them. The trial judge would have to address any disclosure issue and ensure a fair trial. The judgment said the notes issue could be raised with the complainant and left for the trial judge if it remained unresolved.
The court concluded that the disclosure concerns did not establish grounds for an injunction prohibiting the prosecutions. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It did not determine the criminal charges.