The Supreme Court has dismissed Gerald McNeill’s appeal against convictions for sexual offences, ruling that evidence of alleged abuse beyond the charges could be admitted because it was relevant and necessary to explain the relationship between him and the complainant.
In a judgment delivered by Denham J. on 8 April 2011, the Court answered a certified question of law about evidence of connected background history. It held that such evidence may be admitted where, without it, facts the jury must decide would be incomplete or incomprehensible. The decision leaves the admissibility of background evidence to the trial judge in each case.
McNeill had been convicted by a jury in 2004 on four assault counts. On two rape counts, the jury returned alternative verdicts of indecent or sexual assault; it convicted him of a further rape count and acquitted him on another. The indictment covered eight counts alleging offences against C.C. between 1989 and 1997 in County Roscommon.
At trial, the judge allowed the prosecution to present evidence of alleged sexual misconduct beyond the indictment, up to the period covered by count seven. The judge considered it necessary to explain the continuing relationship and the issue of consent. No special direction was given to the jury about how it could use that evidence.
The Supreme Court said evidence of uncharged alleged offences cannot be used to invite a jury to conclude that an accused was likely to have committed the charged offences because of his character or past conduct. But it may be admitted if it is relevant and necessary to an issue the jury must determine, including to make the relationship or a complainant’s actions comprehensible.
The Court said a trial judge should generally consider giving a warning explaining why background evidence is admitted and what it may or may not be used to prove. In this case, however, the evidence was presented in a restrained manner; the jury’s separate consideration of counts, including acquittals and alternative verdicts, indicated careful assessment. The Court concluded that the lack of a warning did not make the trial unsafe or infirm in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal.
The judgment records that the complainant wished to be named and waived anonymity through counsel. This draft nevertheless preserves her initials.