The Court of Appeal has dismissed S.Q.’s appeal against his conviction for raping K.S., finding that the failure to approach two people who accompanied her to a Garda station did not establish a risk of an unfair trial on the information before the court.
The court said Gardaí should have approached the two people to establish whether K.S. had spoken to them about the offence and, if so, sought statements. No statements were taken from either person. The court found this was a departure from the Gardaí’s duties, but said it did not, by itself, make the trial unfair.
S.Q. was convicted on 22 October 2018 of raping K.S. on 20 January 2016. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, backdated to the date of conviction. The Court of Appeal heard his challenge to that conviction; it dismissed the appeal.
At trial, K.S. said that after going to S.Q.’s apartment for dinner, she felt unwell and later remembered being naked on a bed, with S.Q. having intercourse with her. She said she told him to stop and that he initially did not. S.Q.’s account, as summarised by the appeal court, was that the intercourse was consensual.
K.S. attended a Garda station the following evening. The appeal judgment recounts medical evidence of trauma consistent with recent vaginal penetration and bruising to her upper lip. The court also noted that text messages between the two included messages the jury could have viewed as admissions.
The appeal centred on information first revealed in K.S.’s victim impact evidence after the verdict: she had told a workmate about the offence before going to the station with him and his girlfriend. The girlfriend accompanied her into the interview room. Neither person provided a statement, and the prosecution later confirmed that their statements had been omitted during the investigation.
S.Q. argued that the lack of statements or disclosure deprived the defence of a potentially important way to test K.S.’s consistency and credibility. The appeal court said the possible evidence of the two people, and whether it would have helped either side, was unknown. It also noted that the defence had made no effort it could identify to obtain information about them or meaningfully engage with the prosecution over their absence or identities.
The court concluded it was not satisfied that the missing information created a real risk of an unfair trial or rendered the trial unsatisfactory. It therefore dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed.