State protests fast-tracking of individual rape case

AN Appeal Court judge has reserved her ruling in an application for a stay of a judge’s order that the State put mechanisms in place to ensure a rape case is completed expeditiously.

On Monday, Justice of Appeal Maria Wilson reserved her ruling on an appeal by the State for the stay and an application for an expedited hearing.

The applications are contained in the State’s appeal of Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams ruling in favour of a rape victim who sued the State over delays in prosecuting the man who allegedly attacked her as a teenager.

On September 6, Quinlan-Williams upheld the woman’s claim of breach of her right to protection of the law and her right to security of the person. She also declared that the failure to hear matters involving children expeditiously constituted a breach of the rights of child victims.

“What the record of the proceeding showed was that the criminal case lumbered through the court without regard to the claimant being a child,” the judge held.

The State has filed 21 grounds of appeal in its contention that the judge was wrong in her ruling. In its application for the stay, the State has argued that the order to ensure the rape case is completed expeditiously trespassed on the role of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

It was also contended there were special circumstances to justify the grant of a stay.

According to the application, the State has allocated costs and personnel for the office of the DPP and the Judiciary which are both “already notoriously oversubscribed and under-resourced” and it was not clear how “by a stroke of the judicial pen” it could be reconfigured to accommodate a single trial.

“More than this, if a direction is to be given to both the prosecution and Judiciary to prioritise the hearing of a single proceeding in priority to other cases…this will inevitably occasion a breach of third-party rights.”

The application said it was the State’s obligation to treat all cases aline and it was likely that the absence of a stay would open the State up to claims of unequal treatment from accused whose cases were de-prioritised to comply with the court’s order.

“There is the prospect of opening the floodgates to state liability in respect of wide categories of claimants in a manner not authorised by the Constitution or by legislation …”

In response, attorneys for the alleged rape victim, said while the claim was “novel,” the State had produced no evidence to support its contention that injustice was likely if the rape case was heard expeditiously and was “hyperbolic.”

“The State employs public servants whose duty it is to do the work that is required to expedite the proceeding. There is no evidence of any additional resources that the State will need to employ to complete the criminal case.”

They also argued it was “ironic” that the State was asking for an expedited hearing, yet saying expedition of the criminal matter would “occasion a breach of third-party rights” and other litigants’ equality of treatment rights.

“The order made by the learned judge does not unlawfully trespass on the rights/powers of the DPP or any other state institution.”

They also contend, “On the flip side of the coin, the respondent will be seriously prejudiced by any further delay in the conclusion of the criminal trial.

“This claim was brought based on serious psychological harm suffered and in the particular circumstances of her case, including her mental health diagnosis, it would be unjust to grant a stay of the mandatory order.”

They have also challenged aspects of the judge’s ruling in a cross-appeal.

The woman was represented by Lee Merry, Rebecca Rafeek, and Larry Boyer. The Office of the Attorney General was represented by Senior Counsel Rishi Dass and Anala Mohan.