The Court of Appeal has upheld P.K.’s convictions on 43 sexual offence counts involving two younger male relatives after rejecting his challenge to evidence given by his mother at trial.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2026, the court dismissed P.K.’s appeal against convictions returned on 24 May 2023 for 37 counts of rape, four counts of sexual assault and two attempted rapes.
The two complainants, identified as TD and DD, are brothers and younger cousins of P.K. The offences found proved by the jury related to periods when they were children or young people and regularly visited P.K.’s family home.
The sole appeal issue concerned evidence from P.K.’s mother, RK. She told the trial that on one occasion she returned home at lunchtime and found TD and a girl identified as SS in the sitting room while P.K. was in his bedroom calling for SS to come in. RK said she intervened and confronted him.
P.K.’s lawyers argued that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial because no charge concerned SS and that it could suggest separate sexual misconduct involving her. They also argued that the evidence had limited relevance to the offences actually being tried.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. TD had testified that SS was present during some incidents and that P.K. had called her into his bedroom. P.K. had also said during Garda interview that he had never been alone in the house with TD or SS.
The appeal court said RK’s evidence therefore supported important parts of TD’s account and contradicted part of P.K.’s interview evidence. Although damaging to the defence, its evidential value clearly outweighed any prejudice.
The court also rejected complaints about the timing of formal notice of the evidence, noting that the underlying material had been disclosed before trial.
No error arose in admitting RK’s evidence, and the conviction appeal was dismissed. The judgment does not address sentence.