The Court of Appeal has dismissed L.D.’s appeal against his conviction for defilement of a child, ruling that the trial was satisfactory and the verdict safe.
The appeal concerned a conviction by a jury in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. L.D. was charged with an offence under section 2(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, alleged to have occurred at his home on an unknown date between 1 January 2010 and 4 July 2011. He received a two-and-a-half-year sentence, wholly suspended for two years, and appealed against the conviction only.
The Court of Appeal considered five grounds, including challenges to the trial judge’s comments to the jury and her refusal to withdraw the case from the jury. The defence had argued that the complainant’s account was too weak and inconsistent to support a conviction, citing uncertainty in his answers, gaps in his recollection and the absence of reported pain. The Court said those were matters for the jury and found there was enough evidence for the case to proceed. It also rejected the argument that the trial judge had applied the wrong legal test.
The appeal court dismissed a separate challenge to the judge’s remarks before the complainant was cross-examined. It found the comments were intended to explain the cross-examination process and put the witness at ease, rather than to endorse his evidence.
The court said the trial judge was entitled to comment on the evidence, but it might have been better for her to use a more conventional style. It cautioned against inviting jurors to imagine themselves in the complainant’s position, saying that approach could risk being understood as endorsement. However, considering the charge as a whole, including its references to the defence case and the judge’s correction after a request for clarification, the court found the line had not been crossed. It concluded that the jury would not have understood the judge to be favouring the complainant.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds and the appeal. It did not alter the sentence, which was not under appeal.