The High Court has prohibited most of the historic sexual offence charges facing a 70-year-old retired joiner, while allowing nine charges concerning allegations made by his daughter about events in 1988 to proceed.
The anonymised applicant, D.(S.) C., faced four charges of indecent assault concerning his niece, Je.C., relating to alleged incidents in 1974 when she was seven. He also faced a series of indecent assault and rape charges involving his daughter, St.C., covering alleged conduct between 1982 and 1988.
Mr Justice MacMenamin drew an important distinction between the two complainants and between different periods covered by the daughter’s allegations.
Je.C. had complained to gardaí in 1987 and again in 1989. In March 1989, the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that no charges be brought. The High Court found significant and unexplained prosecutorial delay. The complaints had not been withdrawn, and there was no evidence that the applicant had prevented Je.C. from pursuing them at that stage.
The judge held that the applicant was therefore entitled to prohibition of the prosecution arising from Je.C.’s allegations. In this context, prohibition means a court order preventing the criminal case from going ahead.
The position concerning St.C. was different. Her November 1988 statement dealt overwhelmingly with earlier alleged abuse, much of it in England. Only three lines addressed conduct after she reached 21 and returned to Ireland. The judge held that the DPP’s 1989 decision not to prosecute could not be treated as barring later prosecution based on substantially fuller evidence about the Irish allegations.
The court nevertheless prohibited the earlier charges relating to St.C., while refusing prohibition for nine charges specifically concerning 1988. It rejected the applicant’s claims that missing witnesses, altered properties, unavailable employment evidence or lost medical material had been shown to cause sufficient prejudice in relation to those remaining charges.
The ruling did not determine whether any of the allegations were true. It decided only which prosecutions could lawfully continue after the passage of time and the earlier prosecutorial history.