The Court of Appeal has dismissed Garbhan O’Cinneide’s appeal against his rape conviction, rejecting both grounds of challenge to the trial proceedings.
The appeal concerned a conviction entered on 5 February 2018 for rape under section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, as amended. The sentence was five years’ imprisonment, with the final 18 months suspended. The Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 April 2019.
The offence arose from events on 23 November 2014. The complainant told the trial that she had begun dating O’Cinneide about two weeks earlier. She gave evidence that, during an attempt at intimacy, she said she was unwilling to have sex without a condom. She said he tried to have intercourse without one, that she clearly rebuffed him, and that he ultimately succeeded. These are the circumstances as recounted in the appeal judgment.
O’Cinneide argued that the trial judge should have discharged the jury after the complainant referred to a conversation that the jury had not heard. The references arose during her testimony and in cross-examination about text messages. The Court of Appeal noted that the conversation had not been the subject of an admissibility ruling: an objection was raised before the evidence could be given, and the prosecution did not pursue it. The court found that the complainant’s answers followed questions put in cross-examination and did not create an impression that information was being withheld or cause prejudice. It rejected this ground.
The second ground challenged the trial judge’s warning about the lack of corroboration. The appeal court held that the complaint about the warning’s wording had not been raised with the trial judge, despite a separate request concerning corroboration. It said the appellant was therefore precluded from advancing that ground and that no fundamental injustice arose.
The court also reviewed the warning and found no error. It said the judge had explained corroboration, told the jury three times that there was none supporting the complainant’s testimony, and advised particular care if they chose to convict. The court said judges have discretion to tailor such warnings to the case and that no particular wording is required by law. The appeal was dismissed.