Two members of a religious order who taught in a west of Ireland school have failed to secure High Court orders restraining their trials on charges of indecently assaulting former pupils.
One complainant had told a priest of the alleged assaults in confession but was told by that priest to pray for his own forgiveness, the court heard. Another complainant had tried to avoid the alleged abuse by making himself fat because as he saw it, fat children were not abused.
The first applicant faces trial on 179 charges of indecent assault from 1968 to 1977, while the second applicant, who served 12 years on separate assault charges, is facing charges in connection with two boys. Both had sought to prevent their trials on grounds of delay in making the complaints, prosecutorial delay and other factors.
In dismissing the first applicant's case, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said a complaint was made to gardaí by a former pupil in October 1995 alleging he had been sexually abused by members of the teaching staff. He had identified the first applicant and two others as those responsible. An investigation was carried out and the DPP had concluded in July 1996 it would be unsafe to prosecute.
A solicitor for the complainant wrote to the Garda Commissioner which led to a further interview with the complainant which yielded fresh material and further inquiries were made. A special investigation unit was set up.
A file was sent to the DPP who, in July 2001, directed a prosecution and the applicant was charged in September 2001. The applicant then took judicial review proceedings to stop his trial.
The judge said he had the evidence of the complainants and of psychologists who assessed them.
One complainant had painted a picture of "extraordinary brutality and systematic sexual abuse" of children and spoke of fear and threats. He said he was terrified of the applicant and had changed his name. In 1984 at confession, he had told a priest of the abuse and the priest told him to pray for his (complainant's) own forgiveness.
Another complainant had said he had seen abuse of others in the class and made himself fat because fat children were not abused. He had sniffed turpentine to help him sleep and was unsure of his own sexuality. A third complainant had said he had not complained earlier out of fear, self-disgust and because he thought he would not be believed.
The judge said he accepted evidence from a number of psychologists that the delay in making complaints was reasonable in the circumstances and was due to the applicant's own behaviour.
He also rejected claims of prosecutorial delay and said he was satisfied the applicant had failed to establish any real and substantial risk that he would not receive a fair trial.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said the second applicant was facing charges in relation to two boys. This applicant had in interviews with gardaí in 1999 made a full statement of admission regarding assaults on one boy but said he had no recollection in relation to the second.
The first boy had complained to gardaí in 1995 and an investigation was held. The DPP decided in 1996 it would be unsafe to prosecute. However, the matter was reopened after that complainant's solicitor wrote to the Garda Commissioner and a decision to prosecute was taken in July 2001.
The applicant had been prosecuted on other offences in the 1990s and received a 12-year sentence which he had served. He was now on bail regarding the present charges. He complained that had the DPP moved earlier, he would have been prosecuted earlier and this would have been fairer. He had also undergone treatment regarding his offending behaviour.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said the delay in bringing the prosecution could not be a basis for prohibiting the trial. The applicant was entitled to a fair trial, including consideration of the sentence he had served and the fact he had made admissions in 1999. However, these matters were not such as to give rise to a situation of unfairness in a new trial.