The Supreme Court has upheld a decision allowing two prosecutions over alleged sexual abuse of two brothers in the 1970s to proceed despite a delay of more than two decades before the allegations reached Gardaí.
The accused, identified only as T.W., faced separate prosecutions. One involved an allegation of buggery and a series of indecent assaults between January 1970 and January 1972. The other concerned alleged indecent assaults between 1970 and 1975.
Both complainants said they had known T.W. through a local cub scouts organisation and judo club when they were young boys. They alleged that he befriended them and sexually abused them. Neither brother knew the other had made similar allegations until years later.
T.W. sought to prohibit both prosecutions, arguing that the lengthy delay had made a fair trial impossible. He also challenged psychological evidence relied upon to explain why the complainants had waited so long before reporting the alleged abuse.
Chief Justice Ronan Keane's successor as Chief Justice, Murray C.J., delivering the Supreme Court judgment, upheld the High Court's refusal to stop the cases.
The court found there was ample evidence from the complainants' affidavits and a clinical psychologist to support the conclusion that feelings including shame, guilt, self-blame and difficulties with trust could explain the delayed complaints, assuming the allegations were true. The judgment stressed that this did not amount to deciding whether the allegations themselves were true; that remained a matter for the trial jury.
The court also rejected claims that the deaths of T.W.'s parents, aunt and another potential witness meant he could no longer defend himself fairly. Their possible evidence was considered too speculative to establish actual prejudice.
The Supreme Court further held that the lack of precise dates for some alleged offences and the absence of medical evidence did not create a real and serious risk of an unfair trial.
The appeal was dismissed. The ruling settles only whether the prosecutions may proceed, not the appellant's guilt or innocence.