The Court of Appeal has dismissed J.B.’s appeal against four convictions for rape and aggravated rape, rejecting challenges to trial rulings and an application to introduce fresh evidence.
A unanimous jury convicted J.B. in January 2020, after a seven-day trial in the Central Criminal Court, of two counts of rape and two counts of rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. The alleged offences took place in a field and at J.B.’s dwelling in July 2016. J.B.’s position at trial was that the sexual activity was consensual.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s handling of prosecution closing remarks about medical evidence, a Garda interview question referring to the complainant shouting “stop”, and the admission of two Facebook messages sent by J.B. The Court of Appeal did not uphold any of those grounds. It said the prosecution had arguably gone too far in attributing a view to the nurse, but the trial judge’s response—reading the relevant evidence to the jury—was not open to criticism. The court also found the interview question was not impermissible, although it was not supported by the evidence as phrased. It considered the Facebook messages admissible, including one that referred to the complainant crying and another that put forward an argument favourable to J.B.’s position.
The fresh-evidence application relied on proposed testimony from two prosecution witnesses at trial, identified in the judgment as CH and AD. The proposed evidence included claims about the complainant’s prior sexual experience and her conduct before and after the alleged offences. The Court of Appeal said the proposed material was largely collateral, might only provide a basis to seek permission to question the complainant about prior sexual history, and might not have been unavailable through reasonable investigation before trial. It also noted that any new testimony from the witnesses could be tested against their earlier statements. The court refused leave to admit the evidence, finding that it did not meet the required threshold.
The judgment also addressed the appellant’s apology and acceptance of guilt at the February 2020 sentencing hearing, which the trial judge said she had taken into account. During the appeal, counsel acknowledged that seeking leniency on that basis and then asserting innocence was unsatisfactory. The appeal court said it could not adjust the sentence because it had concluded that J.B. did not wish to appeal its severity. It dismissed the conviction appeal. The judgment does not determine any appeal against sentence.