The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the conviction of an anonymised appellant, identified in the judgment as S.O’S, for 24 counts of sexual assault relating to N.O. and one relating to T.O. The convictions followed a trial in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended on terms.
The two complainants are sisters and were children during the alleged offences. N.O. gave evidence that the appellant, her aunt’s partner, assaulted her during overnight stays, describing incidents between 2005 and 2010. T.O. gave evidence of one alleged assault when she was aged six or seven. These were allegations at trial; the jury returned guilty verdicts on the counts that went to it.
The appeal challenged, among other matters, the decision to try the complainants’ allegations together, the refusal to stop the trial or direct acquittals, the judge’s directions to the jury, and the handling of a count covering a period when the appellant was not resident at the stated flat for part of that period. The appellant also argued that changes in N.O.’s account of the frequency of incidents and limited date details made the trial unfair.
The Court of Appeal found sufficient similarities between the allegations to support the trial judge’s refusal to sever the indictment. It said the differences were modest and that the shared features included the complainants’ relationship to the appellant, their young ages, and allegations of assaults in bed involving touching under clothing. It also held that the disputed evidence and inconsistencies were matters for the jury to assess, and found no basis to overturn the decisions not to stop the trial or direct acquittals.
On count 9, which covered January to March 2005, the court noted that evidence established the appellant did not move into the flat until March. The prosecution sought to amend the count’s start date, but the trial judge refused. The appeal court said amendment had been open to the judge, but held that the existing period included March 2005 and found no error in allowing the count to go to the jury.
The appellant sought leave to introduce a photograph said to show the bedroom layout had changed earlier than N.O.’s evidence suggested. The court refused leave, finding the photograph would not have materially influenced the verdicts and questioning whether it could not reasonably have been obtained at trial. It rejected the remaining grounds and dismissed the appeal.