The Court of Criminal Appeal has refused Patrick Hegarty leave to appeal his conviction for offences committed in 1991, rejecting arguments about a juror’s internet research, the trial judge’s directions on delay and the overall fairness of the trial.
Hegarty was convicted in January 2011, after an eight-day trial, of nine counts of rape and eight counts of sexual assault. The offences were alleged to have occurred over five weeks during the summer of 1991, when the complainant was 15 and staying at the home of Hegarty and his wife, her aunt. Hegarty was 47 at the time. The court said a separate appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentences, on grounds of undue leniency, was dealt with separately.
On the sixth day of the trial, a juror disclosed that she had searched online for information about a defence witness’s description of the company van Hegarty drove. The juror said the information she found appeared inconsistent with that description. She told the trial judge she had not discussed her search or findings with other jurors. The trial judge discharged her, and the trial continued with 11 jurors. Defence counsel agreed to continue with 11, although he said he would have preferred a full jury.
The appeal court held that the trial judge had properly questioned and discharged the juror. It found no factual or evidential basis to conclude that the remaining jurors had been prejudiced. The defence had not asked the trial judge to make further enquiries or to discharge the whole jury, the court said.
Hegarty also argued that the jury needed more specific guidance about how the long delay affected his ability to answer the allegations. The complainant reported to gardaí in September 2008; Hegarty was arrested in January 2009, and the trial took place in January 2011. The appeal court acknowledged that her evidence lacked detail about some background matters, while noting that other parts contained considerable detail. It also reviewed evidence about a 1995 letter from Hegarty apologising for “my part in our actions”; the prosecution said it referred to sexual misconduct, while the defence argued it related to the complainant’s drinking. The court said the letter’s meaning was for the jury to decide.
The appeal court concluded that the trial judge’s warning about the difficulties caused by delay was complete and appropriate in the circumstances. It also rejected the claim that the combined issues made the trial unfair. The court refused the application for leave to appeal the conviction; it did not determine the separate prosecution appeal against sentence in this judgment.