The High Court has prohibited further proceedings in the trial of an 80-year-old man charged with indecent assaults alleged to have occurred between 1964 and 1984. The court said his age, terminal illness and the exceptional age of some allegations together created exceptional circumstances warranting intervention.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice White on 24 November 2017, arose from an application for judicial review seeking to prevent the prosecution. The High Court initially refused leave in June 2016. The Court of Appeal granted leave in December 2016 and remitted the matter to the High Court.
The charges followed complaints by two nephews in 2011 and by eight members of the man’s family in 2014. The judgment records that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had initially directed no prosecution on the two nephews’ allegations in September 2011. After receiving a further Garda investigation file in April 2015, the DPP reviewed that decision and directed in November 2015 that the man be tried on indictment.
The charges comprised allegations involving nine complainants, with counts spanning dates from 1964 to 1984. The applicant argued that the delay and age of the allegations had prejudiced his defence. He also relied on his health, hearing and possible memory difficulties. The court noted that his mother, who had lived with him during the periods in question, had died in 1994. The judgment said the memory concerns had not been confirmed by expert medical opinion.
Medical evidence described metastatic bowel cancer as incurable and terminal, with treatment managed by palliative care. The judgment said doctors could not predict his life expectancy but considered it likely to be a short number of years or possibly less. The applicant was also 80, had poor hearing and possible memory loss.
The court acknowledged the seriousness and frequency of the charges and the strong public interest in having the prosecution proceed. It also noted that members of the family who complained in 2014 had discussed sexual abuse at a family meeting in 2003, when they were adults, and that some delay might have been avoided if complaints had been made then.
The judgment said delay alone would not prevent the trial and that prejudice is generally better assessed by the trial judge in light of the evidence. But it accepted that the “omnibus principle” could apply in exceptional circumstances. Considering the circumstances together, the court ordered that any further proceedings in the trial be prohibited. The judgment does not state that the court determined the truth of the allegations.