The Court of Appeal has dismissed B.B.’s appeal against convictions for eight sexual offences involving two children who were his niece and nephew. The ruling, delivered on 16 May 2024, leaves in place the convictions and the 15-year prison sentence imposed in January 2022.
The court said it had changed the initials used for the appellant and children to protect the children’s identities. The offences of which B.B. was convicted were said to have occurred between August 2014 and April 2016, when the children were aged six to seven and five to six. His convictions comprised one count of rape, five counts of rape under a separate statutory provision, and two counts of sexual exploitation of a child.
B.B. challenged the admission of video-recorded interviews with the children, the limits placed on cross-examination of a specialist Garda interviewer, the refusal to investigate a letter from the jury foreman, the decision not to hold a separate trial, and the exclusion of proposed evidence from a psychology academic identified as Dr A.
The appeal court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the recordings under section 16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992. The children had brought notes to their second interviews, where B.B. was named. The court accepted the trial judge’s view that the notes helped the children focus on events and were used as aides-memoires. It said alleged departures from advisory interview guidelines and the circumstances in which B.B. was named were matters the jury could consider when weighing the evidence. The recorded interviews were transparent, and the children were available for cross-examination.
The court also rejected the claim that the jury foreman’s post-trial letter justified an inquiry into deliberations. It said the concerns described related to events inside the jury room, which are protected from inquiry, and there was no suggestion of outside influence. The challenge to a joint trial also failed. The appeal court pointed to the trial judge’s repeated directions that each accused and each count had to be considered separately.
Dr A’s proposed evidence concerned whether interview techniques, including repeated questions and the use of notes, affected reliability. The appeal court found no error in excluding it: the trial judge was not satisfied that the proposed opinions rested on a sufficiently reliable body of knowledge or would assist the jury.
The court dismissed all grounds advanced. Its decision concerned the appeal against conviction; the source does not report a new sentencing order.