The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed J.S.’s appeal against his conviction for rape and 14 counts of sexual assault of his niece, finding no error or unfairness in the trial judge’s directions to the jury.
The appeal concerned the jury warning about statements the appellant made during a Garda interview and whether the judge’s account of prosecution and defence evidence was unbalanced. The court’s judgment was delivered by Mr Justice MacMenamin on 17 July 2013.
The complainant said one assault happened in summer 2002 while the appellant was moving bales on his farm. She was aged between 13 and 15 during the period covered by the offences. At interview in 2005, the appellant denied making any bales in 2002 and said he had made bales in 2001 and bought them in 2003.
A contractor, Mr P.D., told Gardaí that he had checked his records and baled and wrapped 42 round bales for the appellant on 17 July 2002. His statement and business records were read to the jury without challenge; he did not testify. The appellant’s son also recalled silage baling in 2002, but said he, rather than his father, was driving the tractor on the date the complainant was there.
The trial judge told jurors that they could treat a deliberate lie as corroborative only in relation to the count concerning the alleged 2002 assault, and only if they were satisfied that the motive was a realisation of guilt and fear of the truth. The judge also referred to other possible explanations, including panic, confusion, misjudgement and failure to remember. The appeal argued that the jury should have been specifically told the appellant might have mistaken the year.
The appeal court said no evidence had been presented that he was mistaken, and found no substantial difference between the suggested direction and the explanations the judge gave. It also held that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the interview statements were deliberate falsehoods, rather than the product of mistake, confusion or another genuine belief.
The appellant further argued that the judge’s descriptions of parts of the complainant’s evidence, including as “a half truth”, favoured the prosecution. The court rejected that ground too, concluding that the summing-up, considered as a whole, was balanced and fair and left factual issues to the jury.
The convictions and sentences were not set aside. The appeal was dismissed.