The Court of Appeal has dismissed R.K.’s appeal against convictions on two counts of intentionally or recklessly causing serious harm by infecting S.K. and R.C. with HIV. The judgment, delivered on 16 June 2022, leaves the jury’s convictions in place.
R.K. was convicted at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 20 July 2018. The prosecution case was that he had unprotected sex with both complainants and infected them. The complainants gave evidence about their relationships and sexual contact with R.K. The defence disputed that the evidence established he was the source of either infection.
Medical and scientific evidence showed that R.K. and both complainants had HIV and that their samples were identified as the same strain, with a mutation detected in all three. The virologist who analysed the samples said this could not confirm transmission or its direction. The defence expert also said genetic analysis could show consistency or exclude a possible source, but could not prove that one person infected another. He said a fuller analysis would require wider background data and accurate histories of relevant sexual contacts.
The appeal challenged, among other matters, the absence of phylogenetic analysis, the decision to let the case go to the jury, the trial judge’s handling of expert evidence and jury directions, and the verdicts. The Court of Appeal held that the absence of such analysis did not make the prosecution unfair or prevent a conviction in principle. On the evidence in this case, it found there was no reasonable possibility of conducting a meaningful analysis, given the information and cooperation it would require.
The court also rejected the argument that the expert evidence was improperly limited. It said the excluded testimony concerned legal issues and prosecution practices in other jurisdictions, matters that were not relevant expert evidence for the jury. The jury had heard evidence about the limits of the scientific testing.
On the trial judge’s directions, the appeal court found no basis to overturn the convictions. It said the judge had explained the prosecution’s burden and the reasonable-doubt standard, and had properly answered the jury’s question about a mutation common to the three samples without adding evidence. The court also held that credibility disputes were for the jury and that the case was not based wholly or mainly on circumstantial evidence requiring a special direction.
The Court of Appeal rejected every ground of appeal. It did not order a retrial or otherwise disturb the convictions.