The Court of Appeal has rejected S.O’C.’s bid to stop his trial on 151 counts of indecent assault, but set aside an order requiring him to pay the prosecution’s costs of his High Court challenge.
The appeal concerned allegations by nine former pupils of a primary school where S.O’C. worked as a teacher. The alleged offences span September 1974 to December 1983. The judgment does not determine whether any of the allegations are true.
S.O’C. argued that the combined effect of the age of the allegations, delays in prosecution, his age and health, and previous trials and convictions meant it would be unfair or unjust to try him. He also challenged the Director of Public Prosecutions’ decision to halt an earlier prosecution and bring the charges together in a new indictment. He said this put him at a disadvantage and bypassed statutory protections concerning the addition of counts.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to prohibit the prosecution. It accepted that prosecuting authorities had reason to act expeditiously given the age of the cases, S.O’C.’s age and his previous trials. But it found no undue prosecutorial delay overall. The court identified an unexplained period of three years and eight months between one complainant’s statement and the submission of a file to the Director, but said this did not establish a breach of the right to an expeditious trial. S.O’C. had not claimed specific prejudice to his ability to defend himself or meaningful additional anxiety caused by delay.
The court also upheld the finding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish significant ill-health, and said that age 71 was not exceptional in itself. Previous convictions and the sentence S.O’C. is serving were not, without other significant factors, grounds to prohibit a further trial.
On the abandoned earlier prosecution, the court found the Director had acted transparently and before the trial began. S.O’C. had not lost the benefit of a favourable trial ruling. The court said the Director was not required to seek his consent under section 4N of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967, and found no unfair prosecution advantage or abuse of process. S.O’C. remains able to apply to the trial judge to sever the indictment if he can show that a joint trial would be unfair.
The appeal succeeded only on costs. The court held that the High Court had not adequately considered whether the challenge was reasonable and defensible, or S.O’C.’s modest means and eligibility for a recommendation under the Legal Aid (Custody Issues) Scheme. It invited submissions on any replacement High Court costs order and on the costs of the appeal. The judgment does not resolve those remaining costs questions.