Mr Justice Eagar refused the prosecution’s application to add charges to the indictment in the trial of N.R. and R.N., citing the accused’s right to a fair trial. He also directed the jury to return not-guilty verdicts on specified counts and amended two sexual assault counts against R.N.
The decision, delivered on 16 May 2016 in the Central Criminal Court, addressed an application to amend the indictment and applications for directions to acquit. The judgment identifies the proceedings as Bill Nos. CCDP 71/2014 and 72/2014.
The prosecution had sought to add charges against N.R. concerning alleged threats, filming, assaults and sexual assaults, and to add sexual assault and sexual exploitation counts against R.N. The judge said the prosecution had received three statements from the complainant and two DVDs of evidence, and could have brought the proposed charges earlier. He described the proposed additions as substantial and declined all of them, saying the court should not substitute itself for the Director of Public Prosecutions and referring to the risk of a trial by ambush.
On the sexual exploitation counts against N.R., numbered 33 to 48, the court concluded that the statutory offence was connected to trafficking. It also noted that there was no evidence of child pornography and that no camera apparently available for use in the bathroom had been produced or found during a search. The judge directed the jury to find N.R. not guilty on those counts.
The court also directed not-guilty verdicts for N.R. on counts 17 to 23, concerning alleged sexual assaults with a poker, because the evidence did not establish that the alleged penetration occurred before J. was six. Counts 1 to 7, concerning section 4 rape charges for the same period, were also directed to result in not-guilty verdicts. The judgment listed counts 8 to 16, 24 to 32 and 49 as remaining against N.R.
For R.N., the judge directed not-guilty verdicts on sexual exploitation counts 66 to 81 and on the sexual assault counts other than counts 58 and 65. Those two counts were amended to specify unknown dates within separate date ranges and an address in Waterford. The court found sufficient evidence on count 82. The judgment therefore said three counts remained against R.N.: counts 58, 65 and 82.
These were directions and rulings during the trial. The judgment does not report the jury’s eventual verdicts on the counts that remained.