"The indictment should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The applicant could not receive a fair trial because of the delay in the initial reporting of the allegation and the manner in which the case proceeded thereafter. The delay was 42 years and there was no evidence capable of corroborating the complainant. It was not possible to explore the reasons for the delay or to examine the complainant about alleged collusion with her sister before the jury because it would have revealed the fact that the applicant had been tried and acquitted of sexual offences against the complainant's sister and niece."
"The issue of delay was clearly before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division when they ordered a retrial. This was obviously a long delay between the dates of the allegations and the date of trial. That said, you have never identified any specific prejudice which arises from that delay. The trial judge was fully entitled to conclude in the exercise of his discretion that notwithstanding the delay a fair trial was possible. He thereafter fully and fairly directed the jury on the issue, providing you with proper safeguards and cautioning the jury about the potential general difficulties he might experience in dealing with allegations relating to matters said to have taken place many years ago. You advance no ground on which the full court might conclude that your convictions were unsafe."