The Court of Appeal has dismissed KM’s appeal against convictions on 91 counts of sexual assault and rape, including an attempted rape count. The court rejected all 11 grounds and said the convictions were safe after a fair trial. This judgment dealt only with the conviction appeal; the appeal against the 12-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, remained outside its scope.
KM was convicted by a jury at the Central Criminal Court on 20 March 2017. The complainant, KM’s stepdaughter, testified that abuse began when she was about eight and escalated to attempted rape and rape when she was about 11. She said the final offence occurred on 13 November 2015 and that she disclosed the abuse to gardaí the following day.
The prosecution relied on forensic evidence gathered after the disclosure. Semen on the complainant’s stomach and underwear matched a DNA profile from a blood sample taken from KM. A test indicated possible saliva on a swab from her left breast, but no DNA profile could be extracted. The prosecution said the semen resulted from the alleged sexual activity. KM denied abuse and said it could have transferred from a bed where he had had sex with the complainant’s mother. The appeal judgment recounts that the prosecution’s forensic scientist said the evidence strongly supported the prosecution’s explanation.
The appeal challenged, among other matters, the admission of evidence about earlier disclosures to a friend and a cousin, the trial judge’s directions on the evidence and scientific findings, the timing of the jury’s consideration of majority verdicts, and refusals to give corroboration and delay warnings. KM also argued that parts of the judge’s directions were unfair or mischaracterised the defence case.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge was entitled to let the prosecution clarify the complainant’s answers in re-examination. It held that the earlier disclosures were not so inconsistent with her trial evidence that they had to be excluded. It also found the jury had heard the scientific evidence and the defence challenge to it, and that the judge’s treatment of that evidence and the defence case was adequate.
On the requested warnings, the court said the corroboration warning was a matter for the trial judge’s discretion and the case did not require the discretion to be exercised in only one way. It found the judge was right not to give a classic delay warning, while noting her comments could have been made without referring to the absence of specific prejudice. The court also rejected the remaining complaints, including the challenge concerning sample counts. It concluded that none of the individual grounds, nor their cumulative effect, undermined the fairness of the trial or safety of the convictions, and dismissed the appeal.