The Supreme Court yesterday cleared the way for the trial of a retired garda on 16 counts of indecently assaulting a young girl.
By a three-to-two majority, the court granted an appeal by the DPP against a decision of the High Court to prohibit further legal proceedings against the man, now in his late 60s, and dismissed a cross-appeal by the man against the High Court finding that the delay in reporting the alleged abuse was due to the man's actions.
The offences are alleged to have occurred between 1974 and 1978. The girl made her first complaint to her mother in 1988 and to a health board in 1996. The man denied the allegations.
In his judgment granting an order of prohibition, the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, said he was satisfied, on evidence from a psychologist, that the girl's delay in reporting the case was due to her association with the applicant. However, Mr Justice Morris said he was satisfied the effect of the delay would result in the applicant being deprived of the right to a fair trial. In the Supreme Court yesterday, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said Mr Justice Morris was entirely justified in concluding that the delay in making the complaint was due to the actions of the applicant.
However, he found Mr Justice Morris was wrong in inferring that the degree of prejudice as a result of the delay in making the complaint was such as to give a risk of an unfair trial. The man's state of health would also not affect his capacity to defend himself. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal. Ms Justice Denham agreed with the Chief Justice.
In his judgment, while also allowing the appeal, Mr Justice Murphy said he did not believe, if the law placed an onus on the DPP to satisfy the court that the delay was caused by the applicant, that that onus had been discharged. In a dissenting judgment, with which Mr Justice Barron agreed, Mr Justice Hardiman dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal. He said the psychologist's examination was inadequate. He found there was a real risk of an unfair trial.