The Court of Appeal has quashed Alan Hanley’s convictions for three counts of rape, ruling that the trial judge should have given the jury a corroboration warning. The court said it could not be convinced that the omission did not affect the trial’s outcome. It will hear further submissions on whether there should be a retrial.
The convictions followed a retrial in the Central Criminal Court. Hanley had also pleaded guilty earlier in the proceedings to assault causing harm, but this judgment concerned only his appeal against the rape convictions. His appeal against sentence was not addressed.
The case concerned events alleged to have occurred on 4 May 2012 at a Limerick house shared by the complainant and her brother. The complainant said Hanley came to the house while she was alone, assaulted and raped her, and later burned a rug and clothing to destroy evidence. Hanley admitted the physical assault while detained, but denied the rapes.
The appeal focused on the complainant’s accounts of whether Hanley ejaculated during the third alleged rape. In statements to gardaí on 5 and 8 May 2012, she said he had ejaculated inside her. At the first trial in April 2014, she said she was not fully sure whether it had happened inside her. During the later retrial, she said she believed it had happened, but accepted she had learned before the first trial that forensic tests had found no semen traces in the samples taken from her. At that first trial, she had denied prior knowledge of the forensic findings.
Hanley’s counsel argued that the discrepancy raised a substantial concern that the complainant had modified her evidence to fit the forensic results and required a warning. The prosecution opposed the request, arguing that the decision was discretionary and that a warning could unnecessarily complicate the jury’s task. The trial judge declined to give one, saying it would make matters unnecessarily complex.
The Court of Appeal said the reasons given for refusing the warning were not compelling. It found that the evidence supporting a warning was very strong and that the questions about tailoring the complainant’s account to the forensic findings were matters of substance. In the court’s view, those circumstances required a warning. It allowed the appeal and quashed the three rape convictions. The judgment did not decide whether Hanley would be retried; that question remains for submissions.