The Court of Appeal has quashed P.R.’s conviction for sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl after finding that the jury was given an imbalanced account of her evidence during the trial judge’s charge.
The alleged assault occurred during an overnight stay at P.R.’s family home on November 26, 2016. The complainant and her parents were staying there while the adults attended a table quiz in a nearby pub. A babysitter remained with the children.
P.R. returned home at about 1.43am. The girl later alleged that he entered the bedroom while she was asleep and sexually assaulted her. The other adults arrived home shortly afterwards and she immediately complained to her mother.
The following morning P.R. denied the allegation. The child was taken to hospital and Gardaí were notified. She later completed a recorded specialist interview. P.R. was arrested in January 2017 and again denied the allegation.
His trial began in January 2019. He was convicted by majority verdict and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with three years suspended.
The central appeal issue concerned the judge’s directions to the jury. During his charge, the judge read the entire transcript of the child’s recorded interviews. However, he did not mention that she had also undergone lengthy cross-examination or remind jurors that they had to assess that evidence as well.
The Court of Appeal said a judge is not required to repeat every part of a witness’s evidence. But once the direct evidence had been reproduced in full, fairness required at least a reminder that the jury must consider the whole of the witness’s testimony, including cross-examination and its salient aspects.
The problem was compounded when the judge told the jury that the transcript represented the complainant’s evidence concerning the night in question.
The court rejected separate complaints about the directions on reasonable doubt. However, the imbalance in presenting the complainant’s evidence was sufficient to render the conviction unsafe.
The conviction was quashed. The Court of Appeal said it would hear further submissions on whether P.R. should face a retrial.