The High Court has dismissed an application by F.B. to stop criminal proceedings involving 66 charges of alleged sexual abuse, finding that the applicant had not shown an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice de Valera on 4 June 2010, concerned an application for judicial review seeking to prohibit further steps in the prosecution and to stay the proceedings while the application was determined. The charges comprise 65 counts of indecent assault and one count of buggery. The allegations have not been determined at trial.
The prosecution concerns two complainants, identified as W.N. and D.N. in the judgment. They are described as the applicant’s second cousins. The alleged offences span 1973 to 1979 in W.N.’s case and 1974 to 1986 in D.N.’s case. The judgment records that charges were brought about 22 to 31 years after the alleged offences, depending on the complainant and the period alleged.
F.B. argued that the passage of time had impaired his ability to defend himself. He cited the deaths of his parents, grandparents and other potential witnesses; an unspecified medical condition; difficulties locating former tenants and identifying family vehicles; and changes to sheds and other places where offences were alleged to have occurred. He also relied on the death of a man, Mr S., who had himself been accused by W.N. of indecent assault, arguing that he could have challenged her credibility.
The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had not shown a real risk of an unfair trial. The respondent said other witnesses could address relevant family and location matters, Gardaí had obtained photographs of locations as they previously appeared, and any prejudice could be managed by the trial judge through directions or warnings. It also disputed that there had been unexplained prosecutorial delay.
Justice de Valera was not satisfied that the applicant was likely to suffer real prejudice in defending the charges. The judge said that even if some prejudice existed, it could be addressed at trial through appropriate directions and warnings. Changes to locations and the absence of potential witnesses did not establish an unavoidable unfairness requiring the prosecution to be stopped.
The court declined the relief sought and dismissed the judicial review application. It did not decide whether the applicant was guilty or determine the criminal charges; those proceedings were not barred by this ruling.