P.F. loses bid to halt sexual abuse trial

This report is a localnews.ie summary based on public court reporting and records; sources are listed below.

The High Court refused P.F. leave to seek an order prohibiting his sexual abuse trial. Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 15 February 2016.

The allegations concerned children at a Dublin home run by a religious order, including complaints of acts which would amount to oral, anal and vaginal rape. P.F. was returned for trial on 31 October 2013.

An indictment furnished on the eve of trial changed the alleged offence dates concerning A from 1968–1974 to 1974–1975, when she was aged 13–14. For B, the dates changed from 1974–1977 to 1977, when she was 14. Dates concerning C were unchanged, and those offences were outside the High Court application.

The trial commenced on 9 July 2015 before Her Honour Judge Codd. After the jury was sworn, the defence sought to exclude the complainants’ statement evidence because its dates differed from the indictment, require an indictment reflecting those statements, or stop the trial to prevent abuse of process.

Judge Codd refused those applications and indicated that prohibition could be sought. The jury was discharged and a new trial date was set for October 2016.

P.F. said he had established that the original dates were incorrect because he had not worked at the institution until 1974, and argued that the amendments had removed that defence. Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys rejected this as a legal objection to the indictment, saying the DPP had to consider the evidence as a whole when deciding the particulars charged.

The court held that concerns about the amended dates belonged in the trial court. It said the precise date was not essential unless it formed part of the offence itself. Fairness safeguards included cross-examination, applications after the prosecution case, jury directions, discharge and retrial, or a directed verdict on particular counts.

The judge said the central issue was whether the alleged abuse occurred. P.F. remained entitled to argue that uncertainty about dates undermined the allegations, but that was primarily a matter for the jury.