The High Court has refused to stop the prosecution of an anonymised applicant charged with rape, finding that the alleged investigative and disclosure failures did not create a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. The court extended the time for bringing the judicial review application, which was filed after the applicable three-month period.
The applicant sought to restrain the Director of Public Prosecutions from proceeding with the charge. The challenge focused on forensic and medical evidence that had not been obtained, delays in disclosure, and information in medical and psychiatric records about the complainant’s health and circumstances. The applicant argued that, taken together, these matters made a fair trial impossible.
The judgment records that the alleged incident was said to have occurred at the complainant’s home in November 2005. The applicant denied the allegation. Gardaí did not examine the bedroom or bedclothes, and the complainant did not undergo a sexual assault examination. In an affidavit, the investigating detective said the scene was considered contaminated after the passage of time and later occupancy, and that an examination was unlikely to yield probative evidence. The High Court considered that decision reasonable and rational on the evidence before it.
Medical and psychiatric material was disclosed to the defence on 2 December 2007, after repeated disclosure requests. The court accepted that the new material formed the basis of the application and that leave had been sought on 14 March 2008, shortly after the three-month deadline. It extended time to that date, citing the short delay, correspondence with the DPP and the fact that the applicant’s legal advisers learned on 25 February that the prosecution would proceed.
The court said the disclosed records could be relevant to the complainant’s credibility, but did not establish that she was so unreliable that the prosecution should be stopped. It also found no obligation on Gardaí to re-interview witnesses about material in a psychologist’s report, which had been disclosed but was not intended for use by the prosecution. The defence could raise relevant matters with the trial judge, who could rule on disclosure and admissibility and direct the jury.
The court concluded that the pleaded issues, individually or collectively, did not establish a real or serious risk of an unfair trial. It refused the requested restraint on the prosecution. The judgment did not decide whether the applicant was guilty of the charge; that prosecution was to proceed to trial.