The Court of Appeal has dismissed P. P.’s appeal against conviction, rejecting challenges to the joint trial of allegations involving three complainants and to the admission of evidence between their cases.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh on 1 December 2022, concerned convictions on three counts in a retrial. The complainants, identified as J, V and Y, were described in the judgment as the appellant’s nieces by marriage. V and Y were sisters and cousins of J. The allegations concerned touching under underwear during sleepovers.
The appellant argued that the indictment should have been split so each complainant’s allegations were tried separately. He also challenged the admission of each complainant’s evidence in the trial of the others, arguing there were insufficient similarities. The appeal did not challenge the way the trial judge directed the jury.
The Court of Appeal considered the principles set out by the Supreme Court in People (DPP) v Limen, which distinguish severance of charges, admissibility of evidence and directions on how a jury may use evidence across counts. The court said the severance question is governed by the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924: whether the offences formed part of a series of the same or similar character, and whether trying them together would prejudice or embarrass the accused in his defence or otherwise make separate trials desirable.
The court found the allegations were of a similar character and that the appellant had not shown that a joint trial was unfair. It noted that the allegations were of the same nature and shared some circumstances, including the family relationship, sleepovers and the alleged touching. Although the complainants had opportunities to speak with one another, the court said there was no evidence of collusion sufficient to make the evidence inadmissible. No application had been made at trial to exclude any complainant’s evidence on that basis.
The judgment said the multiple allegations had at least some probative value, including because of the inherent implausibility of several complainants inventing the same story. Once the evidence met the admissibility threshold, the degree of similarity or dissimilarity and any possibility of contamination were matters for the jury to assess.
The court concluded that neither appeal ground was made out. It held that severance was not required and that the admissibility test was satisfied, then dismissed the appeal. The decision did not reconsider the jury directions, which were not challenged.