The Court of Appeal has allowed A.E.’s appeal against convictions for two counts of rape and seven counts of assault causing harm, finding that the trial judge did not engage with key defence arguments when ruling that A.E.’s Garda interview was admissible. The court said the interview’s admissibility may be determined afresh if there is a new trial.
The court rejected A.E.’s other two appeal grounds. It did not decide whether an inducement had been made or whether the interview was inadmissible. It said those questions should not be decided by the appeal court without assessing the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence at trial.
A.E. had been convicted by a jury on 16 April 2021 and sentenced to nine years, with the final two years suspended on conditions. The sentence was backdated to 5 February 2020. The charges concerned alleged offences against A.E.’s younger brother, identified as C, between 2001 and 27 March 2006. C was aged 11 or 12 at the time of the alleged rapes; A.E. was 16 or 17.
The appeal court rejected the argument that the trial judge should have directed acquittals on all counts after the prosecution case. It said the evidence and its alleged vagueness were matters for the jury. It also rejected the challenge to the judge’s refusal to have defence counsel’s closing speech read again to the jury, noting that the jury could ask for clarification of evidence or law and did not make a further request.
The interview challenge concerned A.E.’s claim that Garda Sergeant K had threatened that he would remain in custody unless he answered questions. The prosecution disputed that any such words were used. The trial judge ruled the interview admissible after a separate hearing, finding A.E.’s account untruthful.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had not addressed defence submissions about A.E.’s repeated references during the interview to leaving in time to collect his belongings, or about a later interview in which A.E. said he had made admissions because he thought he was going into custody. The appeal court described these as substantive points relevant to the credibility of A.E. and the Garda witnesses. It did not determine their weight or resolve the disputed claim.
The court allowed the appeal on this ground because the trial judge’s reasons did not show engagement with those defence points. Its judgment did not itself order a retrial: it said it would hear counsel on whether there was any reason not to remit the case for one.