ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell has tasked his department to fix a legal loophole after a Canberra father escaped prosecution despite admitting to molesting his son.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But any chance of launching another prosecution against the man appeared to have been extinguished in the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday.
The case, the result of an unintentional legislative blunder dating back to the 1970s, has potential ramifications for other historical child-sex offences.
Now the man's lawyers and the prosecution are locked in a heated dispute about how the case was run and whether the DPP should foot the man's legal fees.
Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker has asked the director's office to provide an explanation for the genesis of the charges.
Earlier last week the prosecution sought to withdraw the charges, a move which would have left open avenues for a new case to be brought against the defendant.
But on Thursday the court ruled granting the withdrawal in the circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, and the magistrate permanently stayed all charges.
The allegations against the defendant will not be tested, but the court has heard he confessed to police.
In a statement to The Canberra Times, Mr Corbell said he had asked the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to explore the issue.
''I take the issue of sexual offences against children very seriously, regardless of when the offence was committed,'' he said.
''This issue was recently raised with me by the Director of Public Prosecutions [Jon White] and I have asked my directorate to look closely at the issue and consult with justice stakeholders.
''Careful examination is necessary before any retrospective amendment to criminal procedure law is made.''
The issue stems from a 12-month statute of limitations on certain offences, including indecent assault, established by a 1976 ordinance. The prosecution has argued the statute was an unintentional consequence of legislation designed to decriminalise homosexuality.
The defendant, whose name has been suppressed, was charged with two counts of indecently assaulting his son, who was as young as seven at the time.
The now 73-year-old was also charged with two counts of common assault. But the man's legal team, solicitor Ben Aulich and barrister James Lawton, have argued those charges were a deliberate attempt to dodge the statute.
After the statute of limitations issue was raised with prosecutors, the director's office eventually agreed to discontinue proceedings. But in court this week they applied to withdraw the charges, rather than offer no evidence.
If the charges were withdrawn the prosecution may have been able to mount a second case based on the same facts.
It would have also denied the defendant the chance to seek court costs - a consequence prosecutor Shane Drumgold said was entirely unintentional. The prosecutor argued the decision to withdraw, rather than offer no evidence, was made in good faith.
''This still amounts to an offence, it's clear that there's an offence,'' Mr Drumgold said.
''And it's clear that there's very strong evidence an offence has been committed … however there's an arguable barrier to running a prosecution.''
Mr Lawton said the withdrawal of charges denied his client procedural fairness.
The prosecution has stridently maintained pursing the matter was in the interest of both the victim and the community at large.
But Mr Lawton said the public interest factor could not be used to ''bootstrap'' the question of whether there were reasonable prospects of success.
Ms Walker stayed the indecent assault charges - because they fell foul of the statute bar - and on the assault charges - because they amounted to an abuse of process.
The defence lawyers are seeking rare indemnity costs, arguing the prosecution pursued the case knowing the charges were barred by statute.