The Court of Appeal has dismissed two men’s appeals against their convictions for offences arising from the same occasion involving a 14-year-old complainant. The court considered two grounds: whether a jury direction about police interview questions came too late, and whether the trial judge should have given a corroboration warning.
The anonymised appellants, E.O’H and G.O’H, were convicted by a jury in the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork in November 2021. E.O’H was convicted of rape and sexual assault; G.O’H was convicted of rape. In May 2022, each received a 12-year prison sentence for rape, with the final year suspended on conditions. E.O’H also received an eight-year sentence for sexual assault, to run concurrently. The appeals addressed convictions only; the judgment does not decide their appeals against sentence.
The appeal focused on a question put to G.O’H during a Garda interview. The interviewing detective had said the complainant’s statement was “very detailed” for a young girl. The jury later asked whether the doctor’s report said the account was too detailed for a 14-year-old. After the report was read again, the trial judge said it contained no such opinion. Defence counsel then suggested the jury might have been recalling the detective’s interview question and sought a direction that questions from Gardaí were not evidence.
The next day, after the jury said it had reached a verdict on one count but had not recorded it, and was “nearly there” on the other counts, the judge directed them that questions put by Gardaí in interviews were not evidence; the accused’s answers were evidence. The jury deliberated for a further hour and five minutes before returning guilty verdicts.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge’s original direction had not specifically addressed questions and opinions introduced during police interviews. It considered, however, that the later direction was clear and that the jury had time to take it into account. The court found no reason to conclude the jury failed to follow it and dismissed that ground.
The appellants also argued that the trial judge should have given a corroboration warning, citing the delay in the complaint and the resulting loss of potential forensic evidence. The appeal court held that the trial judge had considered those submissions and was entitled to conclude the case did not warrant such a warning. It found no error and dismissed that ground as well.
The court concluded it was not persuaded that the trial had been unsatisfactory or that the verdicts were unsafe. It dismissed both appeals against conviction.