Judgment: 2026-05-05 · Court archive

Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to historical rape and indecent assault convictions

Court of Appeal · [2026] IECA 77

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • M.D.
  • C
  • M
  • A
  • Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy
What

Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to historical rape and indecent assault convictions

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Central Criminal Court
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The appeal court held that the missing records amounted to a lost opportunity rather than the loss of an obviously useful line of defence. The appellant had been able to rely on oral evidence and the 1966 electrical documents, while the jury received a warning about the difficulties arising in an old case.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by M.D. against convictions for rape and eight indecent assaults involving three of his sisters at the family home between 1971 and 1981.

M.D. had been convicted after a 12-day Central Criminal Court trial in November 2023. The offences involved complainants identified as C, M and A, who were children at the relevant times. He received an effective sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, with individual sentences ranging from 12 months to 64 months and two terms ordered to run consecutively.

On appeal, the principal issues were whether evidence of a complaint made by M to another sister in 2003 should have been admitted, and whether the long delay before trial had deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to admit the 2003 complaint. Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, delivering the court’s judgment, said the question was whether it had been made at the first reasonable opportunity in M’s circumstances. The court pointed to her fear of the appellant, the imbalance in their relationship, his influence over her over a lengthy period and her mental health as significant factors supporting the trial judge’s ruling.

The delay argument centred mainly on missing ESB records which might have established when the family home was electrified. That issue was relevant because two complainants had described offending occurring when the house had no electricity, while the defence relied on documents dated 1966 and evidence suggesting electricity was available earlier.

The appeal court held that the missing records amounted to a lost opportunity rather than the loss of an obviously useful line of defence. The appellant had been able to rely on oral evidence and the 1966 electrical documents, while the jury received a warning about the difficulties arising in an old case.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the legal principles governing historical allegations and fair-trial delay. It rejected the remaining grounds and dismissed the appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review