The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Stokes’s appeal against his convictions for rape, child defilement and two counts of sexual assault. The judgment, delivered on 20 December 2016, addressed the conviction appeal only; it did not decide his separate challenge to sentence.
Stokes was convicted by a unanimous jury on 5 August 2015 after a 17-day trial. He received a 12-year prison sentence, with the final two years suspended for 12 years. The offences were alleged to have occurred on 3 June 2011 on the Old Tuam Road, Monksland, Co Roscommon.
The prosecution case was that Stokes had sex with the complainant, identified in the judgment as CS, without her consent and knew she was under 15. CS testified that she was 14, told Stokes her age and repeatedly asked him to stop. The defence case, put through cross-examination, was that the sexual contact was consensual. Stokes did not give evidence.
The appeal raised 14 grounds, including challenges to Garda interview evidence, the trial judge’s directions to the jury, medical evidence and the defence of honest belief about CS’s age. The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s decision to admit the interview material. It noted that the trial judge had found Garda conduct fell short of the required standard, but concluded the conduct did not make the appellant’s denials inadmissible. The court also rejected arguments that the jury had been unfairly shown selected interview excerpts.
On the medical evidence, the appeal court accepted that the trial judge’s original charge omitted that genital redness was consistent with consensual as well as non-consensual sex. It held that a later recharge corrected the omission by making that point clear to the jury. The court also found the directions on honest belief and the burden of proof, and the charge on corroboration, adequate when read as a whole.
The judgment said two witnesses had introduced inadmissible evidence that Stokes had threatened CS through two children. Because the defence had asked to proceed with the trial when the evidence arose, the court said it could not be advanced as a standalone appeal ground.
The court rejected the remaining grounds, including the request to consider them cumulatively, and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment expressly confined itself to that appeal.