The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Christopher Griffin leave to appeal his conviction for rape and other sexual offences, finding no grounds for an appeal. The application concerned the conviction only, not the sentence.
A jury convicted Griffin on 18 January 2007 at the Central Criminal Court, sitting at Cloverhill, Dublin. He was sentenced on 24 April 2007. The charges comprised 15 counts of rape and/or sexual assault against a young female over several dates from 1993 to October 2001. The complainant alleged that the assaults began when she was about eight and continued until she was 16. Griffin denied the allegations.
In its judgment delivered on 22 June 2009, the appeal court considered challenges to the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself, the use of a security report, the Cloverhill venue, media coverage, rulings on applications, the absence of a witness and the jury charge. It said the claim that the judge had previously acted for Griffin was unsupported by evidence. It also declined to entertain the broader security-report bias argument because it had not been raised for a ruling at trial and no basis for an exception to the usual appeal principles had been argued. The court added that the report concerned security arrangements and found no evidence it influenced the trial.
The defence had asked the trial judge several times to discharge the jury over reporting that linked a rape case with a fatal shooting and criminal feuds. The appeal court found the earlier reports could not reasonably have been understood by the jury to refer to Griffin’s case. It described an Evening Herald report as a closer reference to the trial, but upheld the trial judge’s handling of it: the judge questioned the jury, whose foreman said they had not been influenced and had not known the issues had reached the media. The court found no appreciable risk of jury contamination. It also rejected the argument that the trial judge’s remarks that the trial would proceed amounted to a blanket refusal to consider applications.
The complainant’s mother did not attend after a doctor described her acute anxiety and fear for her and her children’s lives. She had given evidence at an earlier trial that differed from her statement to gardaí. The appeal court held that the trial judge acted appropriately in proceeding: her availability was uncertain, her evidence might support either side depending on what she said, and defence counsel had declined offers to seek a warrant for her attendance.
Finally, the court held that the jury charge adequately addressed the lack of corroboration and the difficulties of an old case. The application for leave to appeal was refused.