In the realm of criminal justice, time is often of the essence. Yet, in cases like the allegations against a one of the Trongsa’s Member of Parliament, we are confronted with the complex challenges posed by delayed reporting. This case, involving alleged child molestation reported two years after the incident, brings to light the intricate balance between seeking justice and ensuring fair trials in the face of temporal challenges.

With no statute of limitations, cases can theoretically be brought forward at any time. This openness, while providing victims with the opportunity to come forward when they feel ready, also presents significant challenges for the justice system. The impact of delayed reporting on criminal investigations is multifaceted and profound. As time passes, “physical evidence deteriorates or disappears, witnesses’ memories fade, and the ability to corroborate accounts becomes increasingly difficult”. In cases of alleged sexual misconduct, where physical evidence is often scarce even in immediate reports, these challenges are magnified.

In the current case, the alleged incident occurred two years ago, with the victim only recently coming forward. This delay, while understandable given the victim’s young age and the power dynamics at play, significantly complicates the investigation. The absence of immediate physical evidence and the potential evolution of witness recollections over time create substantial hurdles. This increased reliance on memory-based evidence is problematic, as research has shown that memories can be influenced and altered over time, especially in traumatic events.

Both the Constitution and Civil and Criminal Procedure Code (CCPC) guarantees the right to presume innocent until proven guilty. Further, a proof beyond reasonable doubt for criminal convictions is required under CCPC. These legal safeguards, while essential for protecting the rights of the accused, create additional challenges in cases of delayed reporting where evidence may be less conclusive. While physical contact may have occurred, intent is disputed. The MP claims accidental touch while requesting a broom. Proving actus rea (physical evidence) and mens rea (mental state—purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently) as required under Penal Code becomes harder with time.

The media and social media’s role in this case introduces additional complexity. The public nature of the allegations against a Member of Parliament has ignited intense debate. Some argue the case surfaced due to the accused’s new position, raising concerns about potential political exploitation and the heightened scrutiny public figures face and potentially make them targets for false accusations. Others maintain that elected officials must uphold the highest ethical standards, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations to maintain public trust.

Extensive media coverage risks creating a ‘trial by media,’ potentially influencing public opinion and compromising the fairness of legal proceedings. This can affect the impartiality of witnesses, and may inadvertently sway investigators, prosecutors, or judges.

The media’s role presents a challenging balance between public interest in transparency and the need to protect the legal process’s integrity and due process of law. This situation underscores the delicate interplay between media, public perception, and justice in high-profile cases.

The path forward demands not just legal and procedural adaptations, but also a mature and responsible approach from media outlets, social media platforms, and the public at large. Only through such a comprehensive and nuanced approach, we may be able to address multifaceted challenges posed by such high-profile cases involving delayed reporting, ensuring that justice is served while maintaining the integrity of its democratic institutions, the rule of law.

Sonam Tshering

Lawyer, Thimphu

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own