A rape victim and her family have called on the Department of Justice to carry out an independent inquiry into the State's handling of her case, which included 20 adjournments and a four-year delay before it concluded last month.
A 57-year-old man was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to three years in prison, 18 months of which was suspended.
The rape took place in 1984 - when the victim was 14 and the man was in his early 40s. His work brought him into contact with his victim and other schoolchildren. In court she described sexual abuse, which happened when she was aged 12 to 14 years and which led up to the rape.
She told her family when she was 18 but was reluctant to press charges, believing that she would recover more quickly by putting it behind her. However, this did not happen and she finally made a statement to the Gardai in 1995.
The victim and her family praise the role of the Gardai in the inquiry, but they were shocked at the ordeal which she endured in the courts. They believe the approach of the legal system to rape cases may discourage other victims from reporting the crime.
The State Solicitor who took the State case said that he could not comment on it as he was merely an agent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A spokeswoman for the Office of the DPP said that he was precluded from commenting on this or other individual cases.
The rape victim (now 30) first made her statement to gardai in July 1995. The man accused was arrested the following month and he denied all allegations.
The first court hearing was in March 1996 and the adjournments began. After 20 adjournments, the case was finally being brought to trial in May of this year.
Two years of delay were due to High Court and Supreme Court hearings following the defendant's decision to seek a judicial review of the case.
Most of the adjournments were granted on the basis of the defendant's ill health, yet the family say medical certificates were seldom provided - whether or not to seek them is at the discretion of the judge. The family believes the State should have been able to intervene to prevent so many adjournments.
The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre knows of many cases in which adjournments were frequently made, according to its director, Ms Olive Braiden. "There is nothing as distressing for the victim as continuous adjournments," she says.
"The victim is prepared to give evidence. They are nervous about it, they can't sleep the night before and then the case is adjourned and they have to go through it all again."
When it came to sentencing, the victim was surprised that the State did not ask that the defendant's refusal to plead guilty be taken into account. Given that the defendant put the victim through more than four years of a court case and two weeks of a trial, her family expected that his sentence would be more severe.
The victim was particularly upset to find that the case was so public and that so many associates of the defendant were in court. "People said that you could take a case like this and no one would ever know about it but that's just not true," she says.
Ms Braiden says that while these cases are held "in camera" this still means that the accused can bring relatives into court. "The courts can often allow too many people in and it is very distressing for the victim if people are walking in and out," Ms Braiden says.
The victim later learned that her statement to gardai had been shown to at least one neighbour in the area by the defendant's wife. "When I made that statement, I did not know that it could be shown to anyone in the street."
While the judge ruled that the identities of both parties be concealed in media reports, the victim felt that this was almost pointless as anyone could walk into the court and listen to the case.
She requested that the accused's identity be revealed once he was convicted but the judge refused this, saying that his ruling on identity must stay, in case any of the six other charges were retried. The jury had failed to come to agreement on six other charges of indecent assault and unlawful carnal knowledge.
After two adjournments, the accused sought leave for a judicial review of the case, arguing that he could not have a fair trial when such a long time had elapsed. He won his case in the High Court but the State appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision was reversed.
This process delayed the case for two years. She now believes that her victory will act as a precedent for other cases, so that other victims do not have to endure similar delays.
In the High Court, Ms Justice McGuinness said that the Book of Evidence presented by the State's legal team did not comply with Section 6 (1) (c) and (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. "The vast majority of statements of proposed evidence in this case consist solely of hearsay and such witnesses could not be called at any proposed trial," her judgment read.
The Supreme Court judges also recognised the difficulties with the Book of Evidence and recommended that it be withdrawn and a new book served without prejudicial matter.
This was done and eventually the trial began last month. The victim said from the day she made her statement in 1995 to the start of the trial, she had no consultation with the State's legal team, although there is provision for one consultation.
"The attitude was: `You are a witness and that's it. You don't need to be involved'," she says. "I didn't want to be told what to say. I didn't want coaching - I just wanted to know the procedures. How long would I be in the witness-box? What should I expect? But there was no help available."
Ms Braiden says that nothing will change until the State grants separate full legal representation to victims. "The victim feels that they have no one on their side. The prosecution is there to represent the State, not the victim. It cannot be seen talking to the victim or it could be accused of coaching the victim. The prosecution very much stands on ceremony in this regard."
Referring to the various tribunals of inquiry going on at the moment, Ms Braiden says that no one would give evidence in a tribunal without having legal representation, yet rape victims are expected to do this. "You are asking a rape victim to give very intimate evidence on a devastating experience and this evidence is then doubted by the defence."
The Minister for Justice, Mr Mr O'Donoghue, has agreed to introduce legislation to allow representation for a victim when evidence of previous sexual history is being introduced, but this has been criticised as being too restricted. Full legal representation is available to victims in countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Germany and France.
Like many rape victims, the woman in this case had a sense that she was on trial to a greater degree than the defendant. "I was in the witness-box for three days in total. He was in it for about two hours. Who was on trial there?" she asks.
"It is an appalling process," says Ms Braiden. "We are encouraging people to come forward but this is what happens when they do. Unless it's a very clear-cut case and the accused pleads guilty, the case will last three or four days anyway." This case lasted eight days.
The victim was baffled that the State team did not ask her if there were any witnesses to confirm her story before the trial began. During the trial, a witness was sought but because this was not included in the Book of Evidence, the judge disallowed it, she said.
Her family is asking the Department of Justice to carry out a full independent inquiry into the case and they want the findings to be made public. "I want to make sure the same thing could not happen to someone else," she says.