Court stops prosecution of farmer on sex charges

A married farmer charged with sexual offences against a younger neighbour in the west of Ireland has secured a Supreme Court order stopping his prosecution.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said the Supreme Court should be slow to permit the criminal courts to be used "as an instrument of blackmail". This was "a matter of public policy".

The judge said the "distinguishing and unique" feature of the case was that the neighbour had persistently resorted to threats, combined with demands for money, of "exposure of the farmer's sexual proclivities". These threats were combined with offers to withdraw charges for money.

The case involved the sort of exceptional circumstances that could justify halting a delayed prosecution for sexual offences, the judge said. He noted the first claim of buggery was made 19 years after the alleged event, was a single event, the neighbour was the only witness and the farmer was twice led to believe he would not be prosecuted. While none of those factors on their own would be sufficient justification to halt the prosecution, the distinguishing feature of the case was that the neighbour had persistently demanded money with menaces, which was criminal behaviour, the judge said.

It was to the farmer's credit that although he was vulnerable to such claims, he never paid or offered to pay anything, he added. This situation was unique in the annals of the many cases of prosecution for sexual offences before the courts in recent years, he said. The neighbour wished to use the courts as a means of extracting money from an accused person, he said.

While in most cases, improper demands by a witness would not be a basis for halting a prosecution, the sole witness in this case had sought to use the threat of exposure to criminal prosecution, and thus the courts themselves, as a means of extracting private pecuniary benefit. This "exceptional element" meant it would be wrong to put the farmer on trial on any of the charges, the judge added.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John L Murray, and Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman agreed and, on that basis, the three-judge court overturned a High Court order permitting the man's trial on three sexual offences he is alleged to have committed against the neighbour on two occasions, in 1977 and 1988.

The farmer was charged with buggery and indecent assault of the neighbour on an unknown date between June and September 1977 and with one count of indecent assault on August 22nd, 1987.

The farmer alleged that the neighbour, who is some 17 years younger, had told him a number of times he was willing to drop the charges if he paid compensation and suggested a figure of £3,000 on one occasion, the court noted. No payment was made.

The farmer was arrested and questioned and accepted that he had made sexual advances to the neighbour, which were rejected. He also accepted he had masturbated in front of him, the judge said. He never accepted he committed the much more serious offence of buggery of the complainant.