A DIOCESAN priest facing 66 charges relating mainly to allegations of indecent assault or gross indecency was given leave by the High Court yesterday to seek an order to prohibit his trial going ahead. The incidents are alleged to have occurred 13 years ago.
Mr Justice Geoghegan, giving leave to the priest to seek a judicial review, directed that the names or any other material identifying any party in the proceedings should not be reported.
The priest is seeking a declaration that the delay in instituting the criminal proceedings has prejudiced him in his ability to properly defend himself
He also wants an order quashing a Circuit Court order sending him for trial and an injunction preventing the DPP taking any further steps in the prosecution.
The priest claims that the delay in bringing the criminal proceedings violates his constitutional right to be tried on them in due course of law under Article 38.1 of the Constitution; prejudices him in his ability to properly defend himself; and breaches Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedom.
It is also claimed that the nature and extent of adverse pretrial publicity concerning him and the charges has prejudiced his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The priest claims the charging of him with 66 criminal offences constitutes an abuse of the criminal jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts.
In an affidavit, opened by his counsel, Mr Felix McEnroy, the priest said he was arrested and charged in November, 1995. He was subsequently served with a book of evidence.
The criminal charges appeared to arise, in the main, out of allegations made in or about March and April, 1995.
The number of charges preferred was oppressive and unfair. It was impossible for the priest, at this remove of time, to properly reconstruct a precise recollection of any contact or involvement that he may have had with all, or any, of the complainants, the court heard.
The priest, in his affidavit, said he had been advised of his legal duty to advise the prosecution in advance of any criminal trial or any defence of alibi, or any evidence in support of it that he may seek to rely upon.
After such a length of time he was unable to adequately recollect if he may have an alibi to any of the 66 offences charged or if there were independent witnesses still alive or available who he could have his legal advisers call in evidence in support of such alibi.
A particular difficulty for him was the lack of precision in the detail of the allegations made against him. The allegations covered substantial periods of time within which the conduct alleged was said to have arisen, with the result that the difficulty of trying to recollect his own movements and those persons who were in contact with him at the time was compounded.
The priest said the complainants were persons known to him in the routine discharge of his clerical duties. He did not commit any criminal offence as alleged in the charges.
He did not exercise any continuing domination or control over the complainants and he was not responsible for their day to day care and welfare. In particular instances he would have organised and been a party to various outings related to his pastoral activities, which would have included some or other of the complainants, but these events were never for extended periods.
The efflux of time had put him in an impossible position, whereby he stood charged with criminal offences with no adequate ability to properly provide his legal advisers with detailed instructions that they continually explained to him that they required.