The trial of a man on sex charges relating to an alleged assault on a teenage boy in 1977 was stopped by a High Court judge yesterday on the grounds of unjustifiable delay in a "lackadaisical and slovenly" Garda investigation.
The alleged victim first complained to gardai in November 1995 and the accused was not arrested until April 1998.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said that, despite excuses made by the Garda authorities, their overall delay in investigating the complaint was "wholly unacceptable" and infringed the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. He stressed that no blame attached to the DPP or his office.
He granted an injunction against the DPP from proceeding with charges of gross indecency and indecent assault against the defendant. The alleged offences arise out of a single incident in 1997 when the alleged victim was aged 15 or 16. In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan noted the alleged victim first made a complaint about the matter to the Garda in November 1995. The detective inspector who received the complaint got permission to get a counsellor's report but that report was not received until June 1996. Garda authorities should have ensured the report was received long before then, the judge said.
There was ample room for criticism of other aspects of the investigation, he added. It was not credible that gardai could not have interviewed the defendant before January 22nd, 1997, 14 months after the original complaint. The judge said he accepted there were some problems arising out of the investigating detective being moved to another station and the fact that a major crime occurred in the area during this period, but extraneous events should be allowed to cause no more than a limited delay.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said he had earlier decided, in line with a recent Supreme Court decision, that the defendant was not entitled to prevent his trial going ahead on the basis that too long a time had elapsed since the date of the alleged offences or on the basis that he would suffer prejudice in the conduct of his defence.
"I think that where there has been a long lapse of time, as in these prosecutions for sexual offences, between the alleged offences and the date of complaint to the guards, it is of paramount importance, if the accused's constitutional rights are to be protected, that there be no blame worthy delay on the part of the guards or DPP.
"If there is such delay, the court should not allow the case to proceed and additional prejudice need not be proved," he said.
