The High Court has refused an application by a retired teacher to stop his trial on 151 charges of indecent assault relating to nine complainants. The trial was due to begin in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 22 January 2024. The judgment did not determine the criminal charges; it refused the requested prohibition at this stage.
The applicant, identified in the judgment only as SO’C, was 71 and serving prison sentences for convictions in other cases. The charges in the current indictment allege offences between 1 September 1974 and 31 December 1983, when the complainants were pupils at a Dublin primary school where he taught. The court continued an order preventing publication of material that could identify him or any complainant.
The application concerned charges brought in three tranches, involving three complainants each. The prosecution had first directed charges concerning three complainants in 2019 and 2020. Charges concerning another three were directed in 2020. In May 2021, before the trial under an earlier indictment had begun, the Director of Public Prosecutions entered a nolle prosequi, ending those proceedings with notice that the allegations would be brought in a new indictment alongside other charges. A third group of charges was directed in August 2021. The charges were later brought together in the indictment challenged in this application.
The applicant argued that the delay, his age and health, earlier trials and alleged prosecutorial delays amounted cumulatively to exceptional circumstances making a fair trial impossible. He also argued that combining allegations from nine complainants gave the prosecution an unfair advantage and circumvented limits on adding charges to an existing indictment.
Mr Justice Barr found that the evidence submitted did not establish that the applicant was in poor health, and there was no evidence of cognitive impairment or memory loss. The court was not persuaded that the factors, considered together, created a real risk of an unfair trial. It noted that no specific prejudice from delay had been asserted and said the trial judge could address any fairness issues arising from the evidence, including through directions or, in an extreme case, by withdrawing the case from the jury.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the nolle prosequi. Unlike cases where a prosecution had been halted after the accused secured a favourable ruling or forensic advantage during trial, the earlier trial here had not begun. The court accepted that facing nine complainants could make the case more onerous, but found that insufficient to prohibit it. It said the applicant could ask the trial judge to sever the indictment if he considered the number of complainants or charges made a fair trial impossible.
The court refused the relief sought in the notice of motion. It deferred rulings on other ancillary reliefs, invited written submissions on the final order and costs, and listed the matter for 12 October 2023.