The trial of a man accused of sex offences can go ahead after the Court of Appeal discharged a Supreme Court-ordered stay.

The defendant, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has been charged with sexually touching a girl under the age of 10 at some time between September 2004 and June 2005.

The girl told her mother about the abuse when she was 13. The child was interviewed by Police but officers discovered that the defendant was not on the Island.

A lookout was put in place at the airport, but police documents state that the order lapsed after six months.

The accused subsequently returned to the Island, and officers became aware of this in April 2014. He was subsequently arrested and charged, and formally denied the offence last September.

The matter was set to go to trial in November, but before matters could begin Puisne Judge Charles-Etta Simmons ordered the matter to be permanently stayed on the grounds that the delays would cause “serious prejudice” against the accused.

The Department of Public Prosecutions appealed the decision on the grounds that it was an abuse of process.

In its judgment, dated April 22, the Court of Appeal explained the reasoning for Mrs Justice Simmons’s decision, stating: “She said the Crown had not explained why the alert had been allowed to lapse and why no action had been taken to ensure the respondent was aware of the allegation as soon as reasonably practical after his return to the Island.

“[Mrs Justice Simmons] accepted that the respondent had not demonstrated, except by argument through his counsel, that he had suffered prejudice and could not receive a fair trial, and that there was danger of what she described as ‘ossification’ of [the girl’s] evidence through disparity of her two statements made a year and nine months apart, but that she was impressed by the argument.

“The two other points she made were that the indictment was so widely drafted that it was virtually impossible ten years on for someone who did not keep a diary to know what he was doing and where he was when the offence was alleged to have occurred. She concluded that on balance of probabilities the delay had, and would, cause the respondent serious prejudice so that there could not be a fair trial.

“There was a real risk that an appropriate direction to the jury would not cure the prejudice.”

However, the Court of Appeal found that Mrs Justice Simmons had erred in making her decision based on legal arguments rather than the facts of the case.

“As the judge acknowledged, it is not uncommon for allegations in sex abuse cases first to be made long after the event, particularly where the alleged victim is a child,” the ruling stated. “The delay was not great in comparison to many cases that come before the court and the reasons for it could have been explored with [the girl] in evidence, as well as the differences between her statements.”

Summarising the ruling, Court of Appeal president Justice Sir Scott Baker wrote: “In my judgment, there was inadequate material on which the judge could decide the respondent would be seriously prejudiced and a fair trial impossible.

“She was wrong to decide the issue on the basis of argument rather than evidence, which could be tested.

“As in most cases, it would have been better to let the trial proceed and keep the fairness of the proceedings under review. I would allow the appeal and discharge the order for a stay.”