The High Court has refused an 86-year-old priest’s application to stop the Director of Public Prosecutions from taking further steps in a prosecution concerning alleged sexual offences against three former students. The court did not determine whether the allegations were true; it said that question would be tested at trial.
In a judgment dated 17 January 2006, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said the applicant had not discharged the burden of showing a real risk of an unfair trial. He also said the difficulties raised by the applicant fell short of proving that a fair trial was impossible.
The applicant was charged on 28 November 2003 with offences alleged to have occurred between 1974 and 1981, when the complainants were minors. The complaints to gardaí were made from May 2002, more than 20 years after the latest alleged assault. The applicant argued that the delay, his age and health, the death of another priest allegedly present at one incident, and other matters had impaired his defence and caused stress and anxiety.
The DPP opposed the application. The respondent said the garda investigation was completed promptly, and argued that the applicant had not identified missing material or a changed physical location that would impair his defence. The court noted that charges followed the investigation, psychological assessments and legal advice. It considered any delay in serving the book of evidence excusable in the circumstances.
Murphy J. treated the complainants’ delay as the central issue. He considered their evidence and the psychologist’s assessment, including evidence that the alleged abuse had affected the complainants and inhibited them from reporting it. The judge concluded that their explanations for the delay were justified in the circumstances. He said the applicant’s argument about the decision not to prosecute a caretaker did not make the evidence against the applicant less credible, and found no actual prejudice arising from the death of the other priest.
The court also said discussion among complainants before they reported the allegations did not necessarily lessen credibility, and could be explored at trial. It noted that the applicant’s age and health did not confer immunity from prosecution. The application was refused; the prosecution was not stopped.