A permanent stay may be warranted where the cumulative effect of extreme delay (53-56 years), the deaths of numerous witnesses (including a crucial witness who was the alleged recipient of contemporaneous complaints), the failing memory of the sole exculpatory witness, and the unavailability of independent records renders a fair trial impossible, notwithstanding that no single factor alone would justify a stay. The cross-admissibility of complainants' evidence as tendency evidence may sharpen the prejudice by bolstering the prosecution case while the accused's ability to defend is severely impaired. The dissent highlights that the 'not reasonably open' standard is stringent and that appellate courts should be slow to substitute their judgment for that of experienced trial judges on questions of unacceptable unfairness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.