The Supreme Court has dismissed DC’s appeal against his convictions for rape and other sexual offences against his daughter, T, rejecting fresh evidence that she had admitted lying at trial.
The court said appellate judges considering claims of a post-trial retraction must assess whether the proposed evidence could reasonably be believed. If it meets that threshold, they must then consider it alongside the trial evidence and decide whether it could reasonably affect the verdict.
DC was convicted by a jury in February 2018 of multiple offences against T, who was aged between six and 10 at the time. The offences were alleged to have occurred in Ireland and New Zealand between March 2006 and March 2010. He received concurrent sentences of 15 years for each rape count and six years for the sexual assault offences, with the final year suspended on conditions.
After the jury’s verdict, T visited DC in prison. DC and other witnesses later claimed she said she had lied about him. His solicitor, who spoke with T after the visit, said he understood she had admitted lying and wanted to make an affidavit. The Court of Appeal heard live evidence on the application to introduce the alleged retraction and rejected it, finding the claims by DC and KD not credible. It found that the solicitor had acted in good faith but that his recollection was an interpretation: his contemporaneous note recorded that T would swear an affidavit saying she had told lies, not that she had confessed to doing so.
DC appealed to the Supreme Court on the legal approach to fresh evidence arising after conviction, the threshold for admitting it, and the role of an appellate court as a fact-finder. His appeal submissions argued that evidence capable of influencing a jury should be admitted for a new trial. The prosecution argued that the appeal court had to assess credibility and materiality.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, the Supreme Court said a claim of recantation must be assessed in the circumstances surrounding both the original evidence and the alleged change of account. The court described the messages and contacts directed at T after conviction as a sustained campaign of pressure, including messages suggesting DC was starving himself and would die, and urging her to help him.
The court concluded that the alleged confession evidence was not credible in that context. It therefore found no basis to overturn the jury’s verdict or disturb the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal; it did not order a new trial.