The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by P.D. against his conviction on 12 counts of sexually assaulting his granddaughter, identified in the judgment as SS, between February 1991 and March 1994. The convictions followed a unanimous jury verdict on 26 June 2015.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s refusal to stop the case before it went to the jury, and the judge’s response to questions raised by jurors during deliberations. The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds. It did not retry the allegations; it considered whether the trial judge had acted correctly.
The judgment records that the complainant described several alleged incidents, including digital penetration when she was about five, being naked in bed beside her grandfather, and tongue-kissing. She said visits to her grandparents’ home took place on Sundays. The appeal judgment also recounts defence submissions about uncertainty in her account, the presence of other people in the house, and evidence from relatives who did not support parts of her account. These matters were presented as arguments and evidence at trial, not new findings by the appeal court.
The defence argued that the case should have been withdrawn because the evidence was vague, tenuous or improbable. The prosecution submitted that the complainant’s reliability and the strength of her evidence were matters for the jury. The appeal court said the trial judge had carefully considered the evidence and applicable law before allowing the jury to decide the case. It held that this decision was within the trial judge’s discretion and that the first ground of appeal failed.
The second ground concerned jury questions about why they had received extracts relating to only three of the 12 charges, the absence of kitchen photographs, the weight of a Garda station statement compared with sworn evidence, and whether the complainant’s counsellor had been called as a witness. The trial judge directed the jury to consider the complainant’s evidence about the alleged occasions and the interview exhibits as part of the evidence, and to decide what weight to give them. He also told jurors not to draw an adverse inference from the accused’s decision not to testify.
The Court of Appeal found the judge’s answer correct. It noted that the complainant’s sworn testimony was the principal evidence and that the jury’s question may have reflected a mistaken belief that they needed further statement extracts before they could convict. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the convictions in place.