The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the convictions of a man identified as AR for four counts of rape and four counts of indecent assault following a seven-day trial in the Central Criminal Court. The appeal against the severity of his sentence was not dealt with in this judgment.
The convictions were entered on 20 October 2016. The allegations concerned two sisters, identified as Ms J and Ms G, who had been former neighbours of the appellant. The prosecution case was that Ms J was aged between 14 and 16 during the alleged offences, while Ms G was about 10 or 11. The appellant received an aggregate sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, but the Court of Appeal considered only his challenge to the convictions.
At the appeal hearing, the appellant pursued four grounds: that the indictment should have been split into separate trials for each complainant; that a remark recorded by an investigating Garda should not have been admitted; that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury; and that the trial judge mishandled Count 5, an indecent assault charge involving Ms J.
The court upheld the trial judge’s refusal to separate the counts. It said the judge had applied the correct principles and that the similarities between the allegations—including that the sisters were neighbours, had contact with the appellant through caring for or playing with his children, and that much of the alleged offending was said to have occurred at his home—supported a joint trial. The court acknowledged the differences in seriousness between the allegations.
The disputed remark, “Oh yes, I remember something like that”, was made after the appellant approached a Garda patrol car as officers were leaving his home. The trial judge had excluded a separate remark—“Two in forty years, is that all? That’s not bad, I’ve had a good life”—but admitted the later comment. The Court of Appeal found that the judge was entitled to do so, despite a technical breach of a rule concerning the recording of statements.
The appellant also argued that inconsistencies in the complainants’ accounts and uncertainty about dates meant the case should have been taken from the jury. The court said those issues were suitable for cross-examination and did not require the charges to be withdrawn.
Count 5 concerned an allegation that the appellant attempted to put his penis in Ms J’s mouth. The count’s particulars had been amended from alleging that he placed it in her mouth to alleging an attempt. The appeal court found the trial judge was entitled to handle the issue as she had, including declining a request to highlight the change to the jury.
The court said the grounds argued, and those addressed in written submissions, raised no doubt about the safety of the verdicts or the fairness of the trial. It dismissed the conviction appeal.