A convicted sex offender has launched High Court challenge over the Legal Aid Board's refusal to provide aid for him to defend civil proceedings brought against him by his victim.
The action has been brought by 77-year-old John Barrow, who in 2017 was given a six-year prison sentence, with the final two years suspended, by the Circuit Criminal Court after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage boy.
The assaults occurred on dates between 1989 and 1990, after Barrow had befriended the boy by offering him free flying lessons.
Barrow would then bring the boy back to his home where the sexual abuse took place. Barrow denied the charges, but was found guilty following a three-day trial.
In 2019 the Court of Appeal upheld his conviction.
Civil action
Following the conclusion of the trial Barrow's victim, now aged in his 40s, initiated a civil action against him, where he seeks damages for assault, battery, trespass to the person and false imprisonment.
Barrow, a retired engineer who has completed his custodial sentence, applied to the Legal Aid Board seeking legal aid for the civil action in 2018. He claims he does not have the means to pay lawyers to represent him in the civil action.
The board turned down his application on grounds including that Barrow did not have reasonable grounds to defend the civil proceedings as he was convicted of a criminal offence in a criminal trial where the burden of proof is much higher.
He claims that and his application was not fully or properly considered by the board.
Statue of limitations
In his action Barrow, of High Road, Annagry, Co Donegal and Upper Mell, Drogheda, Co Louth seeks orders quashing the board's refusal last February to consider his application for Civil Legal Aid.
Represented by Siobhan Phelan SC Barrow also seeks an order compelling the board to consider and determinate his application for civil legal aid based on fuller and more complete information.
He further seeks declarations including that by failing to accept and consider his application for legal aid the board has fettered its discretion, and failed to vindicate his rights in accordance with the requirements of constitutional justice.
Barrow claims that there is no legal impediment to the board considering a repeat or fresh application for civil legal aid.
He also claims when new information becomes available the board is obliged to consider it. The board he said in refusing to consider his new application has erred in law and has acted unreasonably and irrationally.
The board's refusal, it is further submitted is in breach of his constitutional rights and his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The matter came before Mr Justice Charles Meenan, at Monday's sitting of the High Court. The judge, on an ex-parte basis, granted Barrow permission to bring his action, and made the action returnable tot a date in June.
