The Court of Appeal has dismissed R.C.’s appeal against his conviction on 72 counts of sexual offences, finding that alleged gaps in the Garda investigation did not make his trial unfair or render the conviction unsafe.
A jury at the Central Criminal Court convicted R.C. on 29 June 2021 of 48 counts of sexual assault and 24 counts of rape. The complainant alleged that he had sexually assaulted and raped her over a ten-year period, from when she was eight until she turned 18. R.C. denied the charges at trial.
The appeal was heard on 13 December 2022. The court announced that day that it would dismiss it, and gave its reasons in a written judgment delivered on 16 January 2023. The appeal concerned the conviction; the judgment does not address sentence.
R.C. argued that the trial judge should have stopped the trial because Gardaí had not taken statements from several of the complainant’s relatives. He also relied on the deaths of the complainant’s grandmother and uncle, saying their possible evidence might have assisted the defence. The trial judge had refused an application to withdraw the case from the jury, concluding that there was no overarching unfairness in the trial process.
The Court of Appeal said the defence had not identified what the deceased relatives might have said or how their evidence could have helped. It described that claim as speculative. The other relatives were alive and available for the defence to interview before trial. Their absence from the Garda investigation amounted to a missed opportunity to find out what they might say, the court held, rather than the loss of a real possibility of an obviously useful defence.
The court also said there was no suggestion that the relatives had witnessed abuse or that the complainant had discussed it with them. Their potential evidence concerned collateral issues, and Gardaí were not obliged to interview everyone who might have something to say on such matters. The court did not criticise the investigating garda for failing to interview them.
The judges found that the trial judge had given appropriate warnings about delay and corroboration. They rejected the claim that the complainant’s evidence was vague as to the nature, regularity and locations of the alleged abuse, while noting that it lacked precision about dates and the number of occasions. The court also rejected the argument that the jury needed a special warning about the un-interviewed witnesses. It concluded that the trial was satisfactory, the conviction was safe, and the appeal was dismissed.