The Central Criminal Court ruled that proposed changes to the dates of three indecent assault charges could be made without breaching the European Arrest Warrant specialty rule or causing injustice to the accused. The ruling concerned the indictment’s dates; it did not determine whether the alleged offences occurred.
Mr Justice Eagar delivered the decision on 10 February 2016. The court also ruled that the remaining indictment, after an earlier trial on other charges, should be severed, with the trial concerning complainant T.C. proceeding before a jury.
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to amend dates in the indictment. The four charges related to alleged indecent assaults on T.C. in 1973 and 1974, at Drumcliffe, Lisdoonvarna and a shop on Mill Road in Ennis. The prosecution said material in T.C.’s 2004 statements pointed to events at different times, including an indication that he may have been babysitting a child in 1978. It argued that changing dates would be a permissible modification under the European Arrest Warrant rules.
The defence argued that moving the dates by up to five or six years went beyond clarification and could breach the specialty rule. It also said the changes risked unfairness because the accused had focused on the claim that he was in England in 1974 and could not have committed the alleged offences then. The defence said the proposed amendments were notified only the previous day and could undermine that defence.
The court considered Article 27 of the EU Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrants, which restricts prosecution for offences committed before surrender other than those for which the person was surrendered. It applied the European Court of Justice’s approach that changes to time or place may be permitted when they arise from evidence about the conduct described in the warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence and do not trigger grounds for refusing surrender.
Mr Justice Eagar concluded that the proposed modification concerned time alone and fell within that approach. He also relied on Irish case law concerning the assessment of fair-trial prejudice in delayed prosecutions involving alleged childhood abuse, and ruled that the amendments could be made without injustice to the accused.
The decision addressed whether the indictment could be amended. The court noted that it had not heard the evidence and did not decide the truth of the allegations or whether the accused committed the offences.