Masseur: I can’t get a fair trial over sex assault claim

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

In High Court proceedings, the man, who is married, denies sexually assaulting the woman, then aged in her 20s, while massaging her in August 2011.

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

His 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, so as to test the credibility of the complainant’s allegation against their client.

Philipp Rahn, defending, said that without the names of the two individuals alleged to have sexually assaulted the complainant, the defence cannot explore “a potential line of inquiry” relevant to the defence. It was sought to speak to the two individuals about the allegations, counsel said.

This was particularly important in a context where an uncorroborated allegation was being made against the masseur, counsel said.

The applicant has brought judicial review proceedings against the DPP for an order prohibiting his trial.

The action is opposed by the DPP. Neither the masseur nor complainant can be identified for legal reasons.

The court heard the applicant’s trial was adjourned in 2013 after 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. Both alleged incidents occurred in the 1990s, she claimed.

She did not disclose this information beforehand and did not make a formal complaint to the gardaí, it was stated.

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

The fact the names of the two individuals referred to have not been disclosed to either gardaí or defence was “neither here nor there”, counsel said. She did not know what purpose knowledge of their identities would serve this applicant.

The case continues.