Masseur accused of sexual assault claims he can’t get fair trial

A masseur accused of sexually assaulting one of his customers during a massage has claimed he cannot get a fair trial and that his prosecution should be halted.

In proceedings in the High Court, the man denies sexually assaulting the woman, then aged in her twenties, while massaging her in August 2011.

The accused claims his right to a fair trial is prejudiced due to the alleged victim’s refusal to identify two other men who she alleges sexually assaulted and raped her years previously.

The man's lawyers claim they require this information, which was only brought to the defence's attention on the morning the man was due to be tried before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, to test the credibility of the complainant's allegation against their client.

Philipp Rahn BL, representing the accused, said that without the names of the two individuals alleged to have sexually assaulted the complainant, the defence cannot explore a relevant "potential line of inquiry".

Counsel said that this information was particularly important in a context where an uncorroborated allegation was being made against the masseur.

The accused has brought judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for an order prohibiting his trial.

The action is opposed by the DPP.

Trial adjourned

The court heard the man’s trial was adjourned in 2013 when the complainant told gardaí she was sexually assaulted by a man when she was a child and was raped by another man when she was a teenager. She alleged that both incidents occurred in the 1990s.

The alleged victim did not disclose this information before the trial and did not make a formal complaint to gardaí.

The woman had said the two men were known to her but she did not want either matter pursued or to identify them as she did not wish to revive the pain of those events.

Opposing the masseur’s application, the DPP, represented by Siobhan Phelan BL, said there was nothing before the court to allow it conclude the accused cannot get a fair trial.

Ms Phelan said that the fact the names of the two individuals referred to have not been disclosed to either gardaí or the defence was “neither here nor there”. She said she did not know what purpose knowledge of the identities of the two men would serve.

Ms Phelan said the defence knows about the allegations involving other parties and could cross-examine the complainant about them at trial and that all relevant material within the possession of the prosecution had been disclosed to the defence.

Ms Phelan said that the judicial review proceedings should also be struck out due to the delay in bringing them.

The case continues.