The Court of Appeal has dismissed EO’C’s appeal against convictions for rape, rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, and intimidation of a witness. The court found no error in the trial judge’s decisions on recent complaint evidence, forensic evidence from the complainant’s clothing, or the direction to the jury on witness intimidation.
A jury convicted EO’C on 22 December 2020 of four offences: two rape offences, directing the activities of a prostitute, and witness intimidation. He appealed the convictions for the two rape offences and intimidation. His trial position was that the complainant had consented to the sexual acts.
The appeal judgment says the complainant reported the alleged rape to her sister and, shortly afterwards, to Sarah Benson of Ruhama. The trial judge allowed evidence of both complaints. The Court of Appeal said there is no legal limit on the number of recent complaints a trial judge may admit, but the evidence must be considered for consistency, not as proof that the allegations are true. It found the two complaints differed in detail and were close in time to each other and the alleged incident. The court held that their probative value outweighed the risk of prejudice and that the trial judge’s jury direction was adequate.
A forensic examination of the complainant’s jeans and underwear found no semen. The clothing had not been examined earlier because an investigating garda mistakenly believed it had been washed, and the forensic laboratory’s policy was not to examine clothing where intercourse was accepted to have occurred. The issue arose at trial amid a dispute about whether a condom had been used. After defence questioning raised the absence of forensic results, the prosecution arranged an examination. The trial judge admitted the results, finding no prejudice to the defence. The appeal court agreed, noting that the defence could have sought its own examination or expert evidence.
The intimidation conviction related to Snapchat posts sent after the complainant’s report and EO’C’s arrest and interview. The posts included violent imagery and references to rape, “Karma” and “Suffer”. The defence argued that the trial judge had wrongly treated posting the messages itself as enough to trigger the statutory inference of intent, and had wrongly refused to give the jury a further direction.
The appeal court rejected that argument. It said the jury had to decide whether the act, viewed in its actual context, was threatening, menacing, intimidating or put someone in fear. It concluded that the trial judge correctly explained the offence’s elements. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions challenged in it; the separate conviction for directing the activities of a prostitute was not under appeal.