The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) have rejected a judge’s concerns around which level of court a youth worker accused of serious child sexual offences should be heard in.
Caoimhin Morgan, 28, from Dixon Court, Coalisland is accused of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, intentionally communicating with a child for sexual gratification as well as possessing and making an indecent image of a child.
Offending is alleged to have occurred on dates between February 1 and June 25, last year.
The case first appeared at Dungannon Magistrate’s Court earlier this year where a police officer confirmed the charges could be connected.
A number of adjournments followed and at the most recent sitting the case was listed for Morgan to indicate how he intends to plead.
However, District Judge Michael Ranaghan noted the case had been directed to remain in the lower court and expressed concern given the severity of the charges.
A defence barrister said the matter was reviewed several weeks beforehand and no indication was made by the prosecution as to any change in respect of the case proceeding to a higher court.
At that hearing last month Judge Ranaghan said: “I may have an issue with this matter and if that is the case, all I can do is ask the Prosecution to review their decision. However, I have no power of refusal if they decline to do so.”
Having taken time to consider the case further he said: “This is a youth worker involved in alleged requests for sex from a child. I do not believe this court has sufficient powers to deal with charges on this level.”
He ordered the file to be sent back to the PPS for review and urged it to be elevated to crown court.
However, at the most recent hearing a prosecuting lawyer advised this file was reviewed and the decision to retain matters in the lower court stood.
Judge Ranaghan remarked: “In that case there is nothing I can do.”
A defence solicitor entered not guilty pleas to all charges on his client’s behalf and the case was adjourned until July 28 to identify a suitable contest date.
Morgan was remanded on continuing bail.
Meanwhile, the PPS was asked to explain why the judge’s very specific concerns appear to have been dismissed and on what basis the case not deemed suitable for direction on to be heard at crown court?
Also was the review which reached the same decision conducted by the same directing officer and/or approved by a senior?
While failing to address some points, a spokesperson replied: “The mode of trial in this case was carefully considered in light of all the available evidence and circumstances of the case, in strict accordance with the PPS Code for Prosecutors. It was concluded that the Magistrates’ Court has sufficient sentencing powers to deal with this matter. At the request of the District Judge, jurisdiction was recently carefully reconsidered and it was again concluded that the Magistrates’ Court is the appropriate venue for this case.
The spokesperson ended the response: “As the case is before the court it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
