The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a man identified as GMCD against five convictions for sexually assaulting his niece when she was aged between three and 11. The judgment, delivered by President Birmingham on 11 November 2022, leaves in place a sentence of seven years and two months, with the final year and eight months suspended on conditions.
The alleged offences took place between 1981 and 1989. The first three counts concerned alleged incidents at a caravan park where the families shared a mobile home; another concerned an alleged incident at the appellant’s home; and the fifth related to the day of the complainant’s sister’s first communion in April 1989. The complainant reported the allegations to Gardaí in November 2014. The appellant denied them in a cautioned statement.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to halt the trial because of delay and missing records, the admission of the sister’s evidence about the complainant’s disclosure, the use of a phone conversation as evidence capable of corroborating the prosecution case, and aspects of the jury charge. The appellant also argued that the combined effect made the trial unfair and the verdict unsafe.
The missing material included records of the complainant’s contacts with a rape crisis centre and a women’s refuge, and records concerning an alleged sexual assault at school. The appeal court said records that did survive referred to abuse by an uncle and opened lines of cross-examination, but did not undermine the central allegation. It concluded the missing material did not present a real possibility of an obviously useful line of defence. The jury, rather than the judge, was entitled to assess inconsistencies concerning sleeping arrangements around the first communion incident.
The court also upheld the admission of the sister’s evidence. It agreed that the disclosure, made after the sister considered staying with the appellant and his wife, was at the first reasonable opportunity in the circumstances, voluntary and sufficiently consistent with the allegation. The court noted that the trial judge had excluded reference to the complainant’s diary.
The complainant’s father testified that, during a phone call after the disclosure, the appellant said they “could have sorted this out” and that he would have “taken the digs” from the father. The defence disputed that account and argued the words were ambiguous. The appeal court held that, if the jury accepted the prosecution version beyond reasonable doubt, the words were capable of supporting an inference of guilt and could amount to corroboration. The jury was to be warned to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt if there were two views of the exchange.
Having rejected all grounds, the court said it was not in doubt about the safety of the verdict or fairness of the trial and dismissed the appeal.