The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by KK and DF against rape convictions and affirmed both convictions. In a judgment delivered electronically on 8 April 2022, the court said it was not persuaded by any of the grounds advanced by either appellant.
The convictions followed a trial in the Central Criminal Court that began on 30 October 2019. On 12 November 2019, KK was convicted of one count of rape. DF was convicted of oral rape. Each was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, with the final 12 months suspended.
The charges arose from events in the early hours of 16 April 2017 at KK’s apartment in a provincial town in the west of Ireland. The complainant, Ms G, said she could not recall parts of the night. She testified that KK had intercourse with her, hit her and applied pressure to her throat. KK’s position was that the sexual activity was consensual. Ms G also said DF turned her over and put his penis in her mouth; at trial she was uncertain whether intercourse had also occurred. DF’s defence was that the activity was consensual.
KK challenged the trial judge’s handling of the complainant’s references to “blacking out” and a prosecution question that used the word “comatose”. The Court of Appeal noted that the prosecutor withdrew that word after defence objections, and that the judge repeated it only while reading the complainant’s evidence at the jury’s request. The court rejected the ground, saying the word was not the judge’s own description and was not a point of substance.
The court also rejected KK’s arguments about the jury charge and recent complaint evidence. It said the judge correctly described such evidence as evidence of consistency, and was not required to explain corroboration in the circumstances. A separate-trial argument was not considered: no application for separate trials had been made before or during the trial, and the issue was not included in the appeal grounds.
DF argued that the State had failed to gather or preserve evidence, including his clothing for possible DNA testing and phone records. The court said the defence could have raised concerns about redacted phone records at trial and could have sought access to entries. On the clothing, it found that the only disputed issue at trial was whether the sexual activity was consensual, and that the failure to seize DF’s clothes had not denied him an obviously useful line of defence.
The court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the convictions. It did not alter the sentences.