The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by P.S. against his conviction on 13 counts of sexual assault, ruling that evidence of complaints made by two of the complainants was admissible.
The appeal concerned only whether complaint evidence from two of the three complainants should have been admitted at trial. The convictions, recorded on 9 June 2021, related to offences against three sisters between 2009 and 2014. The judgment states that P.S. is their maternal grandfather. The appeal court did not reconsider the other issues in the convictions.
One ground concerned a complaint by AB to a physical education teacher in January 2014. AB had previously confided in a schoolfriend, who did not give evidence. The alleged offences against AB were in 2009 and 2010. The defence argued that the later complaint was not made at the first reasonable opportunity, pointing to the delay and the absence of evidence from the friend. The prosecution’s counsel told the appeal court that AB’s parents had not wished her to make a statement; the judgment notes that no explanation had been provided to the trial court for the friend’s absence.
The other ground concerned evidence from a schoolfriend, Ms R, about a complaint by KB in 2016. The alleged offences against KB occurred between 2012 and 2014. The trial judge admitted evidence of both complaints, treating the same admissibility issues as arising for each.
The appeal court said recent complaint evidence may be admitted to show consistency with a complainant’s testimony, but is not evidence that the alleged events happened. Whether a complaint was made at the first reasonable opportunity depends on the circumstances, including the complainant’s age, relationship with the accused and the people to whom she could have spoken.
In AB’s case, the court considered the family relationship, her age, the prolonged nature of the alleged abuse, her fear and efforts to avoid P.S., and the fact that she saw him regularly. The court held that the four-year interval between the last alleged offence and her complaint to the teacher did not make the evidence inadmissible in those circumstances. It was not persuaded that the trial judge had erred in admitting it.
The court also rejected the challenge concerning KB’s complaint to Ms R. It said the evidence was relevant to consistency and to explaining how Gardaí became involved and the investigation began. The court dismissed both grounds and the appeal against conviction.