The High Court granted relief to R.C. in respect of seven charges concerning allegations by J.S.C., but refused to stop two charges concerning allegations by J.G.C.
In a judgment dated 11 February 2005, Mr Justice John MacMenamin extended the time for R.C. to seek leave for judicial review. The court then considered his challenge to the prosecution, which argued that delay and insufficient detail in the charges would prejudice a fair trial.
The seven charges concerning J.S.C. alleged offences between 1957 and 1958, when she was aged four to six and R.C. was aged 16 to 17. Her Garda statements described alleged assaults at family homes and a shed. The judgment recorded differences between those statements and information later given to a psychologist, including conflicting accounts of the timing and circumstances of incidents. The court found that the internal conflicts were manifest in the material before it and, combined with the exceptionally long delay, created a serious risk of prejudice if those charges proceeded.
The court therefore granted relief in relation to charge sheets 127/2000 and 4/2001, and charges 224 to 228 of 2001. This stopped the prosecution on those charges; the judgment did not determine whether the allegations were true.
The two charges concerning J.G.C. related to alleged indecent assaults in 1976, when she was 15 or 16. R.C. argued that the delay, his age, time spent working outside the jurisdiction, a head injury and the loss of possible alibi evidence prejudiced his defence. The judge found the delay alone insufficient to prohibit trial and said the claimed prejudice lacked the necessary specificity. The court also considered evidence about fear and family relationships as an explanation for the delay in reporting.
The judge refused relief concerning charge sheets 128 and 129 of 2000. Those charges were not prohibited by this judicial review decision and could proceed. The judgment did not decide guilt or innocence.