The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the trial of a prison officer for the rape and indecent assault of two of his sisters over a 10-year period.
The Supreme Court unanimously yesterday granted an appeal by the DPP against a High Court decision stopping the man's trial on grounds of delay in making the complaints and prosecutorial delay.
The man, aged in his forties and a father of two, is facing 21 charges of rape and 21 charges of indecent assault of one sister and 39 counts of rape and 39 counts of indecent assault of the second sister. All the offences are alleged to have been committed between 1971 and 1981, when the sisters were aged from seven years to 11 years.
Both sisters made complaints against the man in 1999 and, after a Garda investigation, a file was sent to the DPP and he was returned for trial in 2002.
In the High Court in January 2006, Mr Justice Eamon de Valera granted orders stopping the trial.
Giving the Supreme Court judgment overturning that decision, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said the man's younger sister informed another sister of the allegations of sexual abuse in 1975 and, it also appeared, discussed the allegations with her mother.
In 1997, the same sister discussed the allegations with her brother and father and the older complainant sister discussed the allegations with her brother and a neighbour.
In 1998, the man became aware, from his father, of the claims against him. He consulted solicitors, who wrote to one sister asking her to withdraw her claims and give him a written apology or defamation proceedings would be issued.
That sister replied through her solicitors that she had been abused by the man, would not withdraw her claims and there was "no question" of a written apology.
Both sisters later wrote that they would strenuously defend any defamation proceedings.
In 1999, the man issued a civil bill claiming damages for defamation for a maximum £30,000 plus costs and both sisters entered a defence stating that their claims were true.
Those defamation proceedings had not proceeded further.
Mr Justice Kearns said the High Court judge wrongly concluded that the right to a speedy trial ran from the date of the alleged offences. The right to a speedy trial began when the complaints first came to the attention of the Garda - between July and September 1999, he ruled.
The onus was on the man to prove the delay had prejudiced him to such an extent there was a real risk of an unfair trial, the judge said. The man had failed to do so.
While the High Court had upheld the man's claim that the deaths of his parents had established such a real risk as he was deprived of their evidence, it had not been alleged they were aware of the alleged abuse when it was allegedly perpetrated. It was also not suggested there were any witnesses to the alleged abuse other than the sisters.
The "crucial" fact was that the man, effectively through his own mouth, had made it abundantly clear he had not been prejudiced in any significant way by the delay, the judge said. In November 1998, the man saw fit, through solicitors, to "invite" his sisters to make their complaints known to the authorities, had said he had "nothing to hide" and would vigorously defend any prosecution of him.
