Judgment: 2021-10-22 · Court archive

Court dismisses T.P. conviction appeal over 24 indecent assault counts in Donegal

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • T.P. (Appellant)
  • X
  • Y
  • V
What

Court dismisses T.P. conviction appeal over 24 indecent assault counts in Donegal

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • County Donegal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal accepted those differences were significant. However, it held that the allegations had sufficient unity because X and Y were siblings, both accused the same family relative, and both said abuse occurred during visits to their grandmother’s home in Donegal. The refusal to sever the indictment was therefore upheld.

The Court of Appeal has dismissed T.P.’s appeal against 24 convictions for indecent assault on his male cousin, X, arising from abuse in County Donegal between 1984 and 1990.

T.P. had stood trial on 49 counts involving X and X’s sister, Y. The jury convicted him on 24 counts relating to X. He was later sentenced to an aggregate term of ten years’ imprisonment. This judgment dealt only with his conviction appeal; his separate challenge to sentence remained outstanding.

The first issue was whether the trial judge should have ordered separate trials for the allegations made by X and Y. The defence argued there were important differences, including the complainants’ gender, ages and sleeping arrangements.

The Court of Appeal accepted those differences were significant. However, it held that the allegations had sufficient unity because X and Y were siblings, both accused the same family relative, and both said abuse occurred during visits to their grandmother’s home in Donegal. The refusal to sever the indictment was therefore upheld.

The second issue concerned corroboration. Evidence from family members was capable of corroborating X’s allegations, although T.P. strongly denied making the admissions attributed to him. There was no corresponding corroborative evidence for Y. The trial judge warned the jury to be very cautious before convicting without corroboration. The appeal court found that approach adequate and noted that the verdicts themselves could indicate the jury had heeded the warning.

The final ground arose when prosecution counsel questioned a defence witness, V, about a telephone conversation that had not previously been disclosed. The trial judge accepted the material should not have been used but refused to discharge the jury. Instead, she directed jurors to disregard the conversation entirely.

The Court of Appeal agreed that little, if any, harm had resulted and held that the direction was sufficient. It found no basis to doubt the fairness of the trial or safety of the convictions and dismissed the conviction appeal.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review