We owe it to victims of sex crimes to improve the way courts handle their cases – The Irish Times

Bláthnaid Raleigh, who was raped in Galway in 2019, highlighted the negative impact of delays in the processing of sexual offences on victims of crime, saying she lost “five years” of her life while waiting for her case to come to court. Unfortunately, Bláthnaid's experience is not an isolated one. Long delays are a major cause for concern and can re-traumatise victims, undermine the accused's right to a fair trial and hinder the effective administration of justice.

Our research, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, examined why sexual offences move so slowly through the criminal justice system and how bottlenecks in the system could be addressed. We interviewed 78 professionals, including representatives from An Garda Síochána, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Courts Service, the Legal Aid Committee and Criminal Procedure, the judiciary, the legal profession, sexual offences treatment units, forensic services, NGOs, as well as the Health Service Executive and Tusla's Advisory and Legal Services.

We found that there are significant delays in the processing of sexual offences in almost every case and at almost every step of the criminal process. The reasons for this are complex and varied. However, almost all participants cited a lack of investment in the criminal justice system as the main reason for the delays. Delays are also partly caused by an inadequate fee structure for legal aid in criminal cases, which has remained unchanged for many years and no longer reflects the labour-intensive nature of the work of legal professionals. As a result, many of them take on a large caseload to generate sufficient income, resulting in busy and overbooked appointment calendars, and tend to read files fully only shortly before the trial date. System-wide uncertainty about when cases will actually be heard, despite trial dates being set, exacerbates the problem. This culture of last-minute thinking emerged as the second main cause of delays.

In criminal trials, the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense any evidence in its possession that is relevant to the case. In some cases, this information comes from schools, medical, counseling and social services, and phone and social media companies. Finding, reviewing, editing and sharing this evidence is time-consuming, particularly in sex offense cases that require gathering low-quality, non-digitized records from across the country. Trials are often adjourned if disclosure is not made in a timely manner or if the defense needs additional time to review new evidence.

Despite recent efforts to improve cooperation between agencies, the findings of this investigation highlighted at times a lack of communication between agencies, a reluctance to cooperate between agencies, gaps in understanding each other's working practices, needs and challenges, and a lack of information sharing. To make matters worse, the IT infrastructure for case tracking is still in its infancy.

Inconsistent knowledge and expertise in the criminal justice field also contribute to delays. Innovations such as the Garda's Divisional Protective Service Units, which specialise in investigating domestic and sexual offences, have increased expertise in this area. However, a complainant's first encounter with the criminal justice system is often still with a non-specialist Garda officer on the front line, who may miss the opportunity to gather time-critical evidence or fail to obtain the correct information from interviews with complainants.

Significant investment is needed across the criminal justice system. Funding has not kept pace with the significant increase in the number of sexual offences brought to the attention of the Gardaí in recent years and is well below the European average. Indeed, a 2022 assessment by the Council of Europe's European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice found that Ireland has the fewest judges per capita in Europe. The recent increase in the number of judicial appointments has not significantly changed this picture.

The disclosure process should also be streamlined and adequately resourced, and its nature and function should be examined in more detail. The introduction of pre-trial hearings could, over time, resolve some of the problems we have identified, but further reform is needed. In this and other respects, we welcome the recent announcement by Justice Minister Helen McEntee to introduce legislation making complainants' consultation notes inadmissible as evidence in criminal trials.

The review of the legal aid system must continue and a separate disclosure fee for criminal justice practitioners must be introduced. In addition, a system-wide, multi-agency response must be created to improve communication, cooperation and information sharing between agencies. The response must be overseen by a high-level, multi-agency strategic management group to ensure accountability and oversight.

The introduction of an integrated IT system capable of tracking and managing cases from the beginning to the end of the criminal proceedings is crucial. The system should be used to generate (and publish) high-quality statistical information, monitor the efficiency of criminal justice systems and identify exactly where bottlenecks occur.

In addition, a trauma-informed, person-centered, restorative culture must be embedded in the criminal justice system. This can not only protect the well-being of complainants and defendants, but also increase the efficiency of the system, as complainants are more likely to remain engaged in the criminal justice process after reporting.

[ Sexual assault units: ‘This will be one of the most traumatic events in their lives’Opens in new window ]

Finally, a special court for sexual offences should be piloted and all criminal justice staff must continue to receive specialist training. Better training and specialisation can reduce case processing times, as specialist practitioners tend to obtain better evidence from witnesses and reduce the risk of secondary victimisation by the system itself.

Dr Healy is an Associate Professor in the Sutherland School of Law, UCD; Dr Keenan is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, UCD.