The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the trial of a former Christian Brother who is accused of multiple sexual offences dating back to 1961.
Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman noted the man had admitted "a significant amount of behaviour of a criminal nature" in interviews with gardaí and said that, in those particular circumstances, it would be "extraordinary" to prohibit his prosecution.
However, the judge stressed, the case should not be regarded as a precedent and the situation could be very different where no such admissions were made.
The man, who had worked at the Artane industrial school in Dublin, had failed to secure a High Court order to prevent his trial going ahead and had appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court.
Giving the judgment of the three-judge Supreme Court yesterday dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Hardiman said there was no reason why the trial should not go ahead.
The man faces eight allegations of buggery, 63 charges of indecent assault and one charge of attempted buggery. The allegations date back to 1961 with the latest allegation relating to 1969.
Mr Justice Hardiman said that a person seeking to stop their prosecution on sex offences in cases where a long delay was involved must demonstrate there was a "real risk" (as opposed to the demonstrated certainty or probability) of an unfair trial.
Although the periods of delay in this case were long, there were certain features which tended to mitigate their effect, he said.
The former Brother had, the judge said, given extensive interviews to gardaí which demonstrated that his memory was functioning and accurate and that he showed "quite a marked instinct for precision".
In the course of the interviews, he made a number of admissions and Mr Justice Hardiman said those admissions appeared to be a significant factor in the case.
"It would in my opinion be extraordinary to prohibit a trial in circumstances where the defendant admits a significant amount of behaviour of a criminal nature."
The judge said he did not consider that the demands of justice or the requirement of a fair trial required that the DPP should be prevented from prosecuting any of the charges against the man.
However, he added, he hoped it was clear that a long lapse of time "has the potential to cause great injustice" and this called for the serious attention of the courts when persons brought challenges to their prosecutions.
"I also wish to make it clear that this is a case of undisputed admissions and cannot be regarded as a useful precedent in circumstances where alleged admissions are hotly disputed and not independently verified."