A Supreme Court judge has said the courts will have to consider "sooner rather than later" whether specific warnings should be issued to juries about the effects of long delays in making complaints of child sexual abuse.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, who made the remark when holding that the trial of a retired Garda charged with the indecent assault of four of his nieces.
The judge said the case could proceed, but that he believed it was essential there was a full record, "by video taping or otherwise", of the allegation of abuse as originally made. Any altered or supplementary allegation should also be fully recorded, he said.
This was so juries could decide whether the allegations were consistent throughout in content and context. It was also "essential" to have a full investigation of the circumstances of the allegation to isolate "islands of fact".
It was also a "considerable anomaly" that there was no firm protocol for disclosure of relevant material in such cases.
Such delays in child sex cases presented the courts with "an acute dilemma", the judge said. This was because, while it had been decided - except in extreme cases - that delay alone was not enough to prevent a trial, it was also long established that a person's right to a fair trail was greater than the community's right to have offences prosecuted.
The courts also had to bear the mind the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the right to a trial within "a reasonable time".
The challenge for the courts is to implement the right of an accused without rendering meaningless the proposition that, in general, delay will not of itself preclude the initiation of a prosecution, he said.
In some cases, it might not be possible to preserve both rights and the right to a fair trial must prevail.
Justcie Hardiman made the remarks when agreeing with a decision by the court, delivered by Ms Justcie Susan Dehman and also agreed with by Ms Justcie Fidelma Macken, refusing a bid by the retired Garda to halt his trial.
The court did however prohibit the man's trial on similar charges against a fifth niece.
The alleged offences relate to dates between 1971 and 1987 and the man had claimed that the delay in making the complaints against him and in the bringing of criminal proceedings had prejudiced his right to a fair trial.
The first formal complaint was made against him in September 1996 and he was returned for trial in June 2000.