The Court of Appeal has allowed Mohamed Okda’s appeal against three convictions, ruling that his trial was unsatisfactory and the convictions unsafe because of deficiencies in the jury directions. It did not decide whether there should be a retrial, saying it would hear submissions on that question.
A jury convicted Okda in July 2017 of two rape offences and sexual assault. He was sentenced in October that year to 11 years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended. The appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 18 July 2019, addressed additional grounds concerning the judge’s charge to the jury.
The court found the judge had not told the jury about the presumption of innocence or explained its relationship to the prosecution’s burden of proof. Although the jury heard that the prosecution had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court said the explanation was inadequate in the circumstances. The judge had not contrasted the criminal standard with the civil standard and had mistakenly told jurors that a particular kind of doubt would enable them to convict. The court also found that the jury had not been instructed on how to approach circumstantial evidence and inferences, and that the direction on the “two views” principle was inadequate.
The court also upheld a complaint about the direction on evidence of the complainant’s prompt report. The judge had given a corroboration warning, cautioning the jury to tread warily because there was no independent evidence confirming the nature of the alleged sexual activity. But the court said he did not explain that evidence of the complaint could be considered as showing consistency with the complainant’s testimony, not as evidence of the facts alleged or as corroboration.
A further ground concerned recklessness. Okda had told gardaí that sexual activity was consensual; the complainant testified that she had said no and told him to stop. The appeal court said recklessness was a live issue and that the judge had not explained its meaning, including the need for conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. It upheld that complaint too.
The court granted leave for the additional grounds to be argued and allowed the conviction appeal on the grounds it upheld. It found it unnecessary to consider the original consolidated grounds, which included disclosure and investigation complaints and a challenge to the sentence. The source records no decision on those grounds or on whether a retrial would take place.