The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by A R against the refusal of her petition to annul her marriage to D R, finding that the evidence did not establish either duress or incapacity to marry.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 24 February 2021, upheld the High Court’s decision. The appeal court said A R had not established even a prima facie case that her consent to the marriage was overborne. It also rejected her claims that the High Court trial was unfair or biased.
A R said D R had pressured and isolated her before their marriage in Ireland on 5 July 1995, leaving her without full, free and independent consent. D R denied subjecting her to duress. The Court of Appeal noted that A R had described herself as happy when she eventually agreed to marry, although she had reservations that events were moving too quickly. It said there was no objective evidence that D R had manipulated her into agreeing to marriage.
The court also considered A R’s claim that D R lacked capacity to enter into a caring and considerate marital relationship, including her suspicions about his mental health and sexuality. It found those claims were unsupported by evidence. A court-appointed psychiatrist initially formed an opinion about duress after meeting A R alone, but changed her view after interviewing D R. The psychiatrist said she saw no evidence that he was unable to engage fully in a marital relationship. The appeal court said the High Court was entitled to accept that evidence.
The court distinguished allegations about conduct during the marriage from the question of consent when it took place. Many of A R’s allegations of abuse related to events after the birth of the couple’s daughter in 1997, two years after the wedding. The appeal court said those allegations, even if true, did not establish that she had been under duress when she married.
A R also argued that the High Court judge had interrupted her unfairly and shown bias. The appeal court reviewed the hearing and found that the judge had allowed her to present her case and had limited questioning to relevant matters. It concluded that the trial was conducted fairly.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It proposed that D R receive his costs in both courts. A R was given 14 days to seek a short further hearing on costs; the judgment does not state the final costs order.