A man charged with two counts of indecent assault and one count of rape against a 16-year-old girl has secured a Supreme Court order prohibiting his trial.
In a unanimous decision, the five-judge court upheld a decision of the High Court granting an injunction restraining the DPP from taking further steps in the prosecution of the man.
It was also very critical of the role of a Garda detective sergeant in the case, who was alleged to have told the man in 1989, without having interviewed the girl about her allegation of indecent assault, that he would hear no more about the matter.
The man was arrested and charged with the alleged offences in March 2000. The first charge of indecent assault arose from an incident alleged to have occurred at his house in September 1989. The second indecent assault charge and the rape charge arose from an incident alleged to have taken place in a wood in October 1989.
The girl told her mother in 1989 about an alleged indecent assault and the mother raised the matter with a local detective sergeant. The first formal complaint to the garda by the complainant herself was in April 1998. The man subsequently took judicial review proceedings arguing his right to a fair trial had been prejudiced because of the excessive delay in making the complaint.
In his High Court decision in favour of the man, Mr Justice McKechnie found that at least from April-May 1995, the complainant was free of any inhibiting forces which might have prohibited her making a formal complaint. He also found the two-year delay between the complaint in April 1998 and the charges in March 2002 was excessive.
The High Court judge held that the delay breached the man's right to a speedy trial and granted him an order stopping it on that finding only. He held the right to a speedy trial could exist independently of any other rights. He rejected the man's claim that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced.
In his appeal against the trial prohibition order to the Supreme Court, the DPP argued a prosecution could be restrained only if the man could demonstrate a real risk of an unfair trial.
In a cross-appeal, the man's counsel appealed against the High Court finding that the man had not established his right to a fair trial was prejudiced.
In his judgment dismissing the DPP's appeal, Mr Justice Hardiman said one of the difficulties in dealing with the case was that the evidential picture was incomplete and there was a great deal of vagueness about what happened, and why it happened.
This was "wholly due" to "the inexplicable failure" of the detective sergeant, who was said to have received a complaint from the complainant's mother, to take a statement from the alleged victim or any notes of what was said to him or of what he himself said.This was not a case where the girl was unable or unwilling to make a complaint for a long period.