The Court of Appeal has dismissed F.E.’s appeal against convictions for rape and threats to kill or cause serious harm, finding that none of the grounds argued on his behalf succeeded.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 1 December 2017, concerned convictions following a jury trial in the Central Criminal Court. The jury found F.E. guilty of rape and three threats-related counts. It disagreed on an assault count and another threats count, and found him not guilty on a further count by direction of the trial judge. F.E. had also pleaded guilty to two offences arising from hammer attacks on his wife and her mother; the court’s appeal judgment addressed the convictions challenged on appeal.
F.E. argued that the trial judge should have given prospective jurors a specific warning about possible racial or religious bias, severed counts in the indictment, discharged the jury after a prosecution question about alleged courtroom conduct, and required Garda Aoife Duggan to be called as a prosecution witness.
The appeal court held that the ordinary warning was sufficient: prospective jurors were told to alert the judge if they could not give F.E. a fair trial based on the evidence. It said there was no basis for the additional warning sought. F.E. had withdrawn this ground from the appeal while reserving a separate challenge to the Juries Act 1976.
The court also upheld the refusal to separate the counts. It found the incidents were closely connected and formed a series of alleged violence and threats in the context of the breakdown of the marriage and the wife’s efforts to separate. The trial judge had directed jurors to consider each count separately.
During the trial, the prosecution asked F.E. whether he had called Garda witnesses “you fucker” as they passed him. He denied doing so. The appeal court agreed that the question was not evidence and that discharging the jury would have been unnecessary and disproportionate.
Garda Duggan had taken a statement concerning the complainant’s response to whether she wished to pursue a complaint. The appeal court said the defence could have sought a witness order and questioned her as a defence witness. It found no obligation to require the prosecution to call her.
The appeal court dismissed all four grounds argued. The judgment did not alter the trial outcomes on the challenged counts.