The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a man identified as M. against his conviction for rape, finding no basis to conclude that the trial was unfair or the conviction unsafe.
The court’s judgment, delivered on 27 March 2015 by Mr Justice Edwards, concerned a conviction returned by a jury at the Central Criminal Court on 15 April 2011. M. had been sentenced on 11 July 2011 to 12 years’ imprisonment and 10 years of post-release supervision.
The appeal focused on two claims: that the trial judge should have withdrawn the case from the jury at the end of the prosecution evidence, and that the jury’s guilty verdict was perverse. The complainant, M.’s daughter, was 11 at the time of the trial and gave evidence by video link. She alleged that her father had raped her, including on the night before she and her family went to a Garda station in September 2007. The court’s account records that the other children were then taken into care.
The defence pointed to inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts, denials by other witnesses of allegations she had made against them, and medical evidence that was not diagnostic of abuse. M. denied the allegation and suggested in police interviews that his wife had influenced the complainant. The trial judge refused the defence application to stop the case, saying there was evidence on which a jury could convict if it accepted it. He said he would give a strong corroboration warning, which the Court of Appeal said was given and was not challenged.
The appeal court explained that weaknesses or inconsistencies in prosecution evidence do not, by themselves, require a judge to withdraw a case. The question is whether the evidence is so weak that no properly directed jury could convict, or whether continuing would be unfair. Assessing the complainant’s credibility and reliability was for the jury, the court said.
The court also rejected the claim that the verdict was perverse. To succeed on that ground, M. had to show that no properly directed jury could have convicted on the evidence. The appeal court was not persuaded. It found the prosecution evidence was properly left for the jury’s consideration and dismissed the appeal.