The Court of Appeal has dismissed J.G.’s appeal against convictions for sexual and indecent assault involving his two sisters, finding that the trial was not unsatisfactory and the verdicts were not unsafe.
The appeal concerned convictions returned after a 2016 Central Criminal Court trial in Castlebar. The jury found J.G. guilty of six counts of sexual assault and three counts of indecent assault concerning Ms B.Z., and one count of indecent assault concerning Ms A.Z. The source also states that the jury returned guilty verdicts on counts 41, 42 and 47 to 50 concerning Ms B.Z. It records that count 3 was withdrawn from the jury by direction and that other counts resulted in not guilty verdicts or verdicts of not guilty by direction.
J.G. argued that the allegations concerning the sisters should have been tried separately because they differed in seriousness, the sisters’ ages at the time, and the conduct alleged. The prosecution relied on similarities, including that both complainants were his younger sisters and described abuse in the family home, including the same bedroom. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge acted within his discretion in refusing to sever the indictment. It dismissed that ground of appeal.
The appeal also challenged the trial judge’s refusal to give a corroboration warning about Ms B.Z.’s evidence. The judge had given such a warning for Ms A.Z. The appeal court acknowledged that there was a serious case for giving a warning about Ms B.Z.’s evidence, but concluded that the judge’s decision was within his discretion and that a warning was not compelled. It also rejected the argument that giving a warning for one complainant required one for the other.
The final ground concerned count 24, the only count on which J.G. was convicted in relation to Ms A.Z. Her brother G.G. had testified that he saw J.G. on top of her in a bedroom in summer 1984. The prosecution linked that evidence to count 4, which alleged rape, while count 24 charged sexual assault over a slightly later period. J.G. argued that the jury had not been adequately directed on unanimity about the basis for the count 24 verdict. The court rejected the argument, concluding that the guilty verdict meant the jurors agreed the elements of sexual assault had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds and the appeal.