An elderly woman who denies indecently assaulting a teenage girl in an orphanage around 45 years ago has withdrawn a High Court challenge aimed at preventing her trial on delay grounds.
The woman, aged in her eighties, will vigorously oppose the allegation against her at her trial, her counsel Peter Finlay SC stressed. She had decided not to proceed with her High Court judicial review in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment in another case affirming a previous decision that the antiquity of such allegations is no bar to a fair trial.
The alleged offences occurred in the early 1970s in an orphanage where the woman, then aged about 18 or 19, was sent to have a baby which she later gave up for adoption.
She remained in the orphanage where she made friendships and was later put in charge of girls between the ages of 13 and 14. She later left, married and had children. 45 years on, a former resident of the orphanage, a woman now living in Canada, had, after receiving therapy and counselling, alleged the woman in charge of the orphanage had indecently assaulted her, Mr Finlay said.
The woman was charged and strenuously denied the allegations. She brought a High Court challenge claiming she would not get a fair trial on grounds including lapse of time.
Mr Finlay said his client has suffered extreme distress as a result of the allegation and required mental health help. Her condition was such she was unable for a time to give proper instructions to her lawyers but her condition improved as did her ability to give instructions.
In light of a recent Supreme Court judgment concerning antiquity of allegations and affirming a previous legal test for deciding whether a trial should be prohibited, he said his client had decided, on legal advice, to withdraw the judicial review but will strongly contest the charges at the criminal trial.
Counsel opposed an application by the DPP for the costs of the High Court proceedings, saying the woman was on legal aid for her trial and no order on costs should be made. Tom O’Malley BL, for the DPP, said his client was still seeking his costs.
Mr Justice Séamus Noonan said the court's discretion on costs is not unfettered and can only be exercised in limited circumstances. While he had a great deal of sympathy for the woman, impecuniosity was not something he could take into account. While granting the DPP an order for costs, the judge said there was a certain "reality to all that" which he hoped the DPP would bear in mind.