The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by B.McD. against his conviction on one count of sexual assault, finding that the evidence was for the jury to assess and that the trial judge’s warning about the absence of corroboration was adequate.
The conviction followed a four-day trial in July 2021. The indictment contained 15 counts relating to alleged offences between 2006 and 2012. The jury convicted on one count concerning an alleged incident between 1 May and 31 August 2006, and did not reach agreement on the remaining counts.
The appellant argued that the evidence was too inconsistent and unreliable for the jury to consider, and that its verdict was perverse. His submissions focused on the complainant’s estimate that she was 10 or 11 at the time of the incident, which she connected to her uncle’s death. A death certificate showed that the uncle died when she was seven. The appeal court also considered other discrepancies explored during cross-examination, including the timing and details of alleged incidents.
The court said those difficulties were significant, but did not meet the high threshold for withdrawing a count from the jury. It noted that the trial judge had drawn the jury’s attention to the issues and that the jury acquitted on all but one count. The court concluded that evidence supported the conviction and rejected the claim that the verdict was perverse.
The appellant also challenged the trial judge’s corroboration warning. The court found it more than adequate, noting that the judge repeatedly told jurors there was no corroboration and warned them several times that convicting without it was dangerous and required particular care. The court also gave considerable weight to the fact that no objection to the wording of the warning had been raised at trial, although it said that point was not determinative.
A further ground alleged that the trial should have been transferred to Dublin because of a risk of local bias. At the appeal hearing, counsel accepted that no transfer application had been made at the second trial and that the appeal court had no transcript or other details about an application at the first trial. The court therefore said it could not deal with that ground.
The appeal was dismissed.