The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against convictions for rape and sexual assault involving a man’s younger brother, ruling that the trial judge acted fairly in limiting questions about the complainant’s sexual history and admitting evidence from a cousin.
The convictions followed a Central Criminal Court jury trial in December 2021. The appellant was convicted of three rape counts and four sexual assault counts, and acquitted on a further sexual assault count. He received concurrent prison sentences in January 2022. The appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 3 November 2023, addressed the convictions only; it did not determine the separate appeal against sentence.
The alleged offences were said to have occurred between 1998 and 2002, when the appellant was aged 14 to 18 and the complainant aged 9 to 14. The complainant alleged sexual touching and penetration. The appellant denied the allegations and argued at trial that his brother had made them out of anger after the appellant told their parents he was gay.
The first appeal ground challenged the trial judge’s restrictions on cross-examination about the complainant’s sexual history and private life. The Court of Appeal said the defence had been allowed to question the complainant about the alleged disclosure to their parents, the complainant’s response, and the appellant’s claim that this led to anger and threats. It held that the excluded details about the complainant’s associations and alleged conduct were not needed to present that motive defence, and could have amounted to an unnecessary intrusion into private life. The court dismissed this ground.
The second ground concerned evidence from Mr C, the appellant’s first cousin. Mr C told gardaí that the appellant had referred to the allegations and asked what would happen to him in prison. He also said the appellant asked how much it would cost to hurt the complainant or their father, and whether Mr C knew someone who would do it. These were Mr C’s allegations; the appeal judgment did not treat them as separate convictions or findings of guilt.
The appellant argued that the evidence was unfairly prejudicial and that gardaí should have put Mr C’s account to him for comment. The Court of Appeal held that the conversations were relevant and included statements that could be admitted as declarations against interest. It found no unfairness in the failure to interview the appellant about Mr C’s statement: the statement was included in the Book of Evidence served on him, giving notice of the evidence the prosecution might rely on.
The court rejected the second ground and dismissed the conviction appeal. Its judgment records that the appeal against sentence remained separate.