Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against High Court orders and judgment in judicial review proceedings, in which a convicted sex offender sought to prohibit further trials for sexual abuse of minors, on the grounds that: (a) there is an unreality in the contention that the appellant’s parents did not notice or were not in a position to prevent the abuse which was admitted; (b) the argument in relation to a deceased Garda, who it is submitted was monitoring the appellant during the time of the alleged offending, is unconvincing; (c) there is no suggestion that certain deceased relatives of the appellant knew anything of the six complainants in the pending trial; and (d) it is not clear how, if certain doctors were alive, they would be in a position to give admissible evidence that the appellant either did not, could not or would not have sexually abused a child in the manner alleged; and (e) issues canvassed on this application are matters that can appropriately be dealt with by the trial judge.
Birmingham P: Criminal Law – judicial review – appeal against orders and judgment of High Court – appellant facing trial in the Circuit Court – sexual abuse of minors – 270 charges involving six complainants – offences are alleged to have occurred between 1978 and 1993 – unsuccessful in efforts to secure judicial review to prohibit criminal trials – appellant was previously charged with sexual abuse of other minors and pleaded guilty – sentenced to a term of fourteen years and two months’ imprisonment – issue of undue delay in prosecution of the alleged offences – irreparably prejudiced by the delay and by virtue of the fact that a number of people who would have had relevant evidence to contribute are now dead or unavailable – High Court judge of the view that even if prosecutorial delay had been established, appellant had not established wholly exceptional circumstances which would be required in order to justify intervention by way of prohibition – High Court Judge concluded that appellant had not discharged the burden placed on him to establish that there was a real or serious risk that he could not obtain a fair trial or that the matters were incapable of being dealt with by way of appropriate rulings and directions on the part of the trial judge – unreality in contention that appellant’s parents did not notice or were not in a position to prevent the abuse which was admitted – argument in relation to deceased Garda who is submitted was monitoring the appellant during the time of the alleged offending is unconvincing – no suggestion that either man knew anything of the six complainants in the pending trials – not clear how if the doctors were alive, they would be in a position to give admissible evidence that the appellant either did not, could not or would not have sexually abused a child in the manner alleged – there has been considerable publicity – open to the appellant to seek transfer of the trial to Dublin – appeal dismissed.