After defendant dies, judge halts case over alleged child sexual abuse

A man who was sued over allegedly sexually abusing a child some 70 years ago has died, the High Court heard.

The case against the deceased must be dismissed because legal representatives of the deceased’s estate are no longer in a position to challenge the alleged victim’s account of the abuse, Mr Justice Charles Meenan ruled.

The alleged abuse began in 1949 when the applicant was aged around 17 and the alleged victim around seven.

It allegedly took place in a deserted building next to the alleged victim’s home.

The alleged sexual assault continued for around two years and occurred weekly or thereabouts, it was claimed.

The alleged victim, now aged in his 70s, said he never spoke to anyone about it until he confronted the applicant in the summer of 2013 when, it is claimed, the latter admitted the abuse.

The applicant denied the various allegations when he entered a defence to the proceedings in 2016.

He was aged in his 80s when Mr Justice Meenan heard his application to have the case against him struck out on grounds of delay.

The case was heard in November last year and the judge was due to give his decision on that application in January last when the court was informed the defendant had died.

Subsequently, the parties made submissions about the consequences, if any, from the death of the defendant.

The proceedings were not re-constituted.

In his ruling on the application to strike out on grounds of delay, the judge said the proceedings had been brought within the time allowed by the Statute of Limitations Act even though that matter was not before the court.

However, what the judge was concerned about was whether, due to the lapse of time between the alleged abuse and the date of a trial some 70 years later, there was a real risk of an unfair trial.

Given the nature of the allegations of sexual abuse, it must be almost certain there were only two witnesses, the plaintiff and the defendant, and there was no suggestion of any other corroborating evidence of any nature.

The judge could not see how a fair trial was now possible given the death of the defendant.

Although the plaintiff, notwithstanding the passage of time, may well have a clear recollection of the alleged, it was difficult to see how cross-examination of the plaintiff could now realistically take place, he said.

The court hearing the action would not be in a position to reach a decision as to the veracity or not of the plaintiff’s claim, he said.

On that basis, he dismissed the proceedings.