The case consolidates the principles applicable to stay applications based on delay in child sexual abuse prosecutions. The onus on an applicant for a stay is heavy; presumptive prejudice from delay alone will not ground a stay; actual ineradicable prejudice must be shown on the balance of probabilities. The critical question is whether the court's capacity to fairly assess the evidence has been so compromised that there is an unacceptable risk of miscarriage of justice, and such cases will be rare and exceptional. Delay is commonplace in child sexual abuse cases and does not of itself justify a stay.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.