A man alleged to have terrified two young women by peering into the windows of their South Dublin apartment in the early hours of the morning has failed to halt his prosecution.
The High Court’s Ms Justice Siobhán Stack found prosecutorial delay of 3½ years did not breach the man’s fair trial rights for reasons including because much of the delay was due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the courts.
In balancing the man’s rights and the right to have offences prosecuted, any attempt to classify this alleged crime as being in some way trivial in nature would be “entirely misconceived”, she said.
Should the statements of the female witnesses be accepted at the District Court trial, which is entirely a matter for the trial judge, the women were caused a great deal of fear and anxiety and feared for their own personal safety, she said.
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
The music of 2024: Our critics’ verdicts on the best albums and acts of the year
‘One Christmas Day my brother set me on fire’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Kellie Harrington fought hard for the dream ending she well deserved
There is, she said, a “clear public interest” in prosecution to vindicate the dignity, privacy and safety of women in their own homes.
The man denies a charge of trespass at the gated apartment complex in Ballsbridge in such a manner as caused or was likely to cause fear in another person, in the early hours of May 15th, 2018.
A number of residents had asserted he was peering in the windows of their properties that morning and two women residents of one apartment made statements they were “terrified” by the incident.
It was claimed the man had been engaging in similar behaviour the previous morning, May 14th, 2018, leading the two young women to ask a male friend to come and stay with them. That evening, they set up a CCTV recording which is part of the evidence for the man’s trial.
In her recently published judgment, Ms Justice Stack noted that when cautioned prior to his arrest the man said he was in the area of the development to see a woman whom he previously had a relationship with.
A garda who investigated the incident was directed in August 2018 to initiate a prosecution, applied for a summons the following month and got a return date of December 20th, 2018.
When the man failed to turn up in court on that date, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. When it was executed some five months later, he was admitted to bail and the case was adjourned on several dates during 2019 for the prosecuting garda to make a disclosure. Disclosure was delayed until November 2019 because the garda was absent from work for a period due to illness.
The case was next before the District Court in early February 2020 when the man pleaded not guilty.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a July 2020 hearing date was vacated as part of a block adjournment of all criminal trials where an accused was on bail. A hearing date was ultimately fixed for late March 2022 but was put on hold pending the outcome of the man’s judicial review, which he initiated in the interim.
The judge said the delay in bringing the man to trial was primarily due to a global public health emergency which necessitated “extraordinary” responses by the State, including the courts.
It had not been established the man should have been treated differently from other people who were, in March 2020, remanded on bail and awaiting trial in the District Court, she said.
There is no specific prejudice to the man’s trial, she said. Any general prejudice arising from the passage of time and its effect on the recollection of witnesses can and should be dealt with by the trial judge who is obliged to vindicate the man’s rights, she said.
