The Supreme Court has stopped a prosecution arising from alleged sexual activity between two siblings when both were children, finding that an inordinate delay in bringing the case to trial outweighed the public interest in continuing it.
P.M. was nine and his sister was seven when the alleged conduct began. The prosecution case was that sexual activity continued for several years, although charges relating to periods before P.M. turned 14 were ultimately abandoned because of the law then governing criminal responsibility for such offences.
The allegations came to professional and Garda attention in January 1992 after the family was assessed at St Clare's Unit in Temple Street Children's Hospital. The complainant described sexual activity with her brother but declined to make a formal Garda complaint at that time, saying she did not want him to get into trouble and was concerned about the impact on the family.
She eventually made a Garda statement in April 1998. P.M. was arrested in May 1999 and returned for trial later that year. By February 2000, the prosecution had reduced the case to charges concerning a shorter period beginning after his 14th birthday.
Chief Justice Keane held that the relevant delay from January 1992 to February 2000 was inordinate and inadequately justified. The case did not fall into the category where delayed reporting was attributable to domination or psychological incapacity caused by an alleged abuser. The complainant had consciously decided as an adult not to proceed earlier because of family concerns.
The court did not find that P.M.'s ability to defend himself had necessarily been impaired. However, the constitutional right to a reasonably speedy trial also protects against prolonged stress and anxiety.
Balancing that right against the public interest in prosecution, and taking account of the particular circumstances and nature of the remaining allegations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and prohibited the DPP from proceeding further.