The Court of Appeal has dismissed Andrius Lipinskas’s appeal against his convictions for three counts of rape, aggravated sexual assault and burglary, finding no basis to doubt the fairness of his trial or the safety of the verdict.
Lipinskas was convicted on 5 June 2019 and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. His appeal challenged the admission of a DNA sample obtained from him at police headquarters in Klaipėda, Lithuania, in February 2012, and a reply he made after being cautioned and charged at Finglas Garda station in Dublin in August 2017.
The convictions arose from an attack on 2 August 2010. The court said the complainant, identified in the judgment as Ms LR, was returning to her home in Finglas when a stranger pushed her into the hallway, threatened to kill her and raped and sexually assaulted her. She escaped to a neighbour’s property, where Gardaí were called. A partly smoked cigarette found at the bottom of the stairs yielded a DNA profile that matched Lipinskas’s profile.
Lipinskas argued that he had not given fully informed consent to the Lithuanian DNA sample. He said the explanation there differed from the wording in the Irish request and did not specifically tell him the results could be used in proceedings against him. The Director of Public Prosecutions relied on evidence from Lithuanian investigator Jurijus Domnenko that Lipinskas’s rights were explained, that he could consult a lawyer, and that he agreed to provide the sample voluntarily and was told it could be used against him.
The appeal court said the procedure was equivalent to what would be followed in Ireland. It found no unfairness or oppression and upheld the trial judge’s decision to admit the DNA evidence. The appellant’s counsel had conceded that the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990 did not apply, while maintaining that its requirements reflected common law safeguards.
The second ground concerned Lipinskas’s recorded reply after charge: “she fell off the second floor while being drunk. I came over to asked [sic] if she was injured”. The reply was not read back to him. The trial judge accepted there had been a breach of the Judges’ Rules but admitted the evidence. The Court of Appeal was not convinced there had been a breach, but said that even assuming one, the judge had exercised his discretion correctly. It noted the presence of an interpreter, the simultaneous recording of the reply and evidence about it in court shortly afterwards.
The court rejected both grounds and dismissed the appeal.