The trial of a consultant surgeon on several counts of alleged indecent assault against 11 male youths who had been his patients between 18 and 38 years ago is to proceed, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
The consultant had appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's refusal in February 1999 to prohibit his trial in the District Court.
In a unanimous decision yesterday, the five-judge Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.
The court said the onus was on the consultant to establish affirmatively that there was a real and serious risk of an unfair trial.
He had indicated a variety of difficulties and problems but fell short of establishing that a trial in these circumstances "would not possess the character of a fair trial as required by the Constitution".
Giving the Supreme Court judgment, Ms Justice McGuinness said the consultant resided in a provincial town. For many years he had held a post in a local hospital and in addition carried on a private practice in consulting rooms in the town.
On December 23rd, 1996, a number of private summonses were issued against him alleging offences of indecent assault relating to 11 male youths who had been his patients. The majority of the charges related to offences alleged to have occurred between 1971 and 1979. One charge, however, went back to 1962 or 1963 while the final offence was alleged to have taken place in 1982.
Most of the youths were in their later teenage years at the time of the alleged offences; one was 19, one was 18, four were 17; one was 16 and two were 15. One of the complainants was 14 at the time of the alleged offence, and the youngest was between nine and 11.
The consultant at all times and in particular during interviews with gardai denied all the allegations and pleaded not guilty to the offences in the District Court, where the judge held the allegations were fit to be tried summarily and refused to dismiss the proceedings on grounds of delay.
The principal ground on which the consultant sought reliefs in the High Court was the lengthy delay between the alleged commission of the offences and any possible trial. He claimed the institution of the criminal proceedings breached his rights under the Constitution and under the European Convention for the Protection and Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
The consultant claimed he could not reasonably recollect either the material circumstances surrounding the alleged offences or the identity of any material witnesses who might be relevant to the allegations against him.
He claimed he did not exercise a position of dominance or exert control over any of the complainants to the extent that they were prevented from making a prompt report of any allegations.
A Garda sergeant had stated that the first complaint against the consultant was made in a statement to another sergeant in March 1994.
A second complaint was made by another person in June 1994. Further complaints came to light later.