A man accused of raping his daughter has launched a High Court action aimed at having childcare proceedings concerning his children adjourned until after his criminal trial has concluded.
The man, who cannot be identified by order of the court, faces before a judge and jury at the Central Criminal Court on sexual offences including rape. He is not due to be tried until early 2016.
Arising out of the allegations the man's children have been placed in the care of the Child and Family Agency, which obtained interim care orders in the District Court which have been periodically extended.
The man has been remanded in custody and has brought a legal challenge in the High Court against District Court orders allowing the Child and Family Agency to place the children in care on the grounds they have been neglected or abused.
The High Court heard on Monday that the man wants the childcare proceedings postponed until his criminal trial has been concluded because sexual abuse allegations form the centre of both the civil and criminal proceedings.
He claimed that should the childcare proceedings go ahead before his criminal trial any finding by the District Court of parental failure could, in breach of his constitutional rights, prejudice a fair trial.
The man is challenging the District Court judge’s refusal to adjourn the childcare proceedings which are due to proceed in a matter of weeks. He claims the judge’s decision was unreasonable and disproportionate and that it should be quashed by the High Court.
His application is being opposed by the Child and Family Agency and his children's guardian who was appointed by the children's court. The matter came before the High Court when the man's lawyers asked Mr Justice Anthony Hunt to recuse himself from hearing his judicial review application.
They told the court that the man had expressed fears of bias because the Judge had previously dismissed an application by him to be released on bail.
Lawyers for both the State parties and the CFA argued that there was no reason why the judge should recuse himself. They also told the court that it was preferable the man’s action be heard and determined as soon as possible.
Mr Justice Hunt said he was satisfied he should hear the case. He said he had no recollection of the bail hearing and that there should be no apprehension of bias. He fixed the hearing of the man’s application for a date in mid-September.