A VULNERABLE RAPE complainant was “extremely distressed” after the ongoing legal aid dispute prevented her trial from going ahead last week, a court has heard.

The case was one of a number of cases listed before Justice Paul McDermott at the Central Criminal Court on Monday in which solicitors did not attend.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) told the judge that this case, involving an “extremely vulnerable person”, was listed for trial last week but could not proceed due to the defending solicitor not attending.

“She was extremely distressed that the case was adjourned” and was asking the court to put the case back in for trial at the earliest possible date, counsel told the court. The woman was a child when the alleged sexual offending took place over 20 years ago.

Mr Justice McDermott said the woman is “a casualty” of “the prolonged dispute”.

“I don’t know when this dispute is going to end. The problem is that [the complainant] is put into this difficulty by a process outside our control,” he said. He said the earliest trial date he could give the case was in February. He also listed it for case management on 4 December next.

“Hopefully this dispute will be over by then. Hopefully there will be a solicitor present to represent the accused,” he said. The accused was present on bail.

Two other cases before the court to fix trial dates involved vulnerable complainants, the court heard. One of these involved an adult who was a child when she was allegedly raped and sexually abused.

Justice McDermott noted that the case was otherwise “ready to go on” but that because of the dispute it was “another case that has to go back”.

The list before Justice McDermott included 13 defendants listed for trial, comprising two for murder and 11 for rape and sexual assault. Around half of these were not ready to proceed due to last minute issues that often arise, such as late disclosures of evidence.

The solicitor on record for one defendant facing allegations of rape and sexual assault was in attendance and a jury was empanelled for his trial. A defending solicitor also attended an accused man who entered guilty pleas to a number of rape charges and was remanded on bail for sentence next January.

Another man in custody awaiting trial for murder was not attended by his solicitor on record. Justice McDermott said this case was a matter of some sensitivity and involved a fitness to plea.

The judge adjourned the case to the afternoon sitting when a representative from the solicitor’s office came to court. Counsel told the court that the accused had not engaged with a mental health assessment.

Four cases involving sexual offending were ready to go to trial but couldn’t because solicitors were not in attendance. One of these cases was a retrial featuring a “particularly vulnerable complainant” who has been “steeling herself for this for quite some time”, Justice McDermott said.

Counsel for the DPP asked the court to list the case again on 9 November in the hope that the legal aid dispute will be resolved by then, either through talks or the expected High Court judgment. Mr Justice McDermott noted there are eight other cases listed for trial that day.

He agreed to put the case to that date but warned: “I don’t want to give false hope to people.”

In another case, involving a Dublin rape accused in custody awaiting trial, senior counsel told the court he had no instructions. Justice McDermott said that nobody can withdraw from a custody case unless a statutory application has been made to the court.

“This is not a question for the practitioners to decide; it’s a decision for the court,” he said, adding that this applied to barristers in the case too.

“As far as I’m concerned it’s going on,” he said, before putting the case into Thursday for trial.

In the call-over court in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, all 10 sentences listed before Judge Martin Nolan were adjourned, almost entirely due to the solicitor withdrawal of services. These cases, involving offences of drugs, assault, affray, attempted robbery, theft, financial fraud and proceeds of crime, were adjourned to dates in December.

One case was given a date on 9 November, with the judge expressing doubt whether it would be able to proceed, given the current situation.

In the theft case listed for sentence, the judge noted the defendant had been in custody for a year. He said the defendant’s situation may be prejudiced as a result and his solicitor should be in court on the next date in early December.

Cases that were listed for mention and for arraignment were almost all adjourned to various dates in December, January and February due to solicitors not being present in court.