The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a conviction for defilement of a 16-year-old and ordered a retrial after finding that part of the trial judge’s charge to the jury improperly undermined a separate defence concerning the complainant’s age.
C.O. was convicted by majority verdict in the Circuit Court in July 2025 of defilement of a child under 17. He was acquitted of a separate sexual assault charge. He received a two-year sentence with the final year suspended, but had not begun serving the custodial term after securing bail pending appeal.
The prosecution case concerned events following a staff social gathering in July 2020. The complainant, then 16, said C.O., who was 28, invited her to his house the following day and they had sexual intercourse. C.O. denied intercourse occurred. Separately, his defence maintained that he reasonably believed she was over 17.
The Court of Appeal held that he was entitled to advance both defences, even if they appeared inconsistent.
The problem arose when the trial judge told the jury that, if they concluded C.O. had lied in denying intercourse, that might "jaundice" their view of his claim that he believed the complainant was over 18, adding that such an approach would be reasonable.
Ms Justice Butler, delivering the court’s judgment, held that this crossed the line from permissible comment into an improper direction on a central issue. The jury had to consider the reasonable-mistake defence separately, with the prosecution retaining the burden of proof.
A second appeal ground concerning admission of another witness’s Garda statement under section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 was rejected. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to admit that statement despite the witness’s changed recollection at trial.
Because the jury-direction error went to the core of the defence, the conviction appeal was allowed and a retrial was directed.