R v FJL

In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions applied for leave to appeal against a permanent stay of 12 counts of indecent assault on children under 16 years of age. The accused, FJL, was facing trial for these offences, with the most recent alleged incident occurring 32 years prior to the trial. The primary issue before the court was whether the significant delay in bringing the case to trial resulted in a ‘simple’ delay that only gave rise to a presumptive prejudice, or whether it constituted a gross delay that caused specific forensic disadvantages, which could potentially be addressed through procedural steps short of a permanent stay.

The court examined the nature of the delay and its impact on the accused's ability to mount an effective defence. It considered whether the delay had resulted in a mere presumptive prejudice, which would typically warrant a permanent stay, or if there were specific forensic disadvantages that could be mitigated through procedural measures. The court concluded that while some of the prejudice could be addressed through procedural steps, the gross delay had indeed caused specific forensic disadvantages that were not fully remediable, and therefore, the case warranted a permanent stay.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the gross delay did indeed give rise to specific forensic disadvantages that could not be adequately addressed through procedural steps. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, with the permanent stay of the 12 counts of indecent assault upheld. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering both the general and specific impacts of delay on the accused's right to a fair trial when determining whether a permanent stay is warranted.