The Court of Appeal has dismissed V.H.’s appeal against convictions for attempted rape and section 4 rape, leaving the convictions in place. The court rejected all grounds of appeal and did not alter the convictions. The judgment, delivered on 23 July 2020, addressed the conviction appeal; the source does not record a separate decision on the sentence grounds listed in the notice of appeal.
V.H. was convicted by majority jury verdicts on 22 of 29 counts after an eight-day trial in November 2018. The trial judge directed verdicts of not guilty on the other seven counts. V.H. received a 12-year sentence on the attempted rape count, with the final six months conditionally suspended, concurrent with sentences on other counts. The greatest sentence for another count was 10 years for section 4 oral rape.
The complainant, V.H.’s daughter, said that between October 2009 and December 2010, when she was in her early teens, he repeatedly made her stimulate his penis and put it in her mouth. She also described one incident in 2010 when he tried to put the tip of his penis in her vagina. She said she told him to stop twice and screamed, and pushed him away before he stopped. V.H. denied the sexual allegations in Garda interviews and suggested the complainant’s mother had encouraged false allegations.
A central appeal issue was the complainant’s evidence that V.H. did not have visible penile implants during the alleged offences. Her mother testified that three hard plastic objects were present and visible during that period. The Court of Appeal said the discrepancy was for the jury to assess and did not require the case to be withdrawn. It also found no injustice resulted from Gardaí not taking a further statement from the complainant before trial: her answers in court were as beneficial to the defence as they could have been. The court said the trial judge had clearly directed the jury to consider the discrepancy and had given a corroboration warning.
The court also rejected the challenge to the attempted rape conviction. It found the complainant’s account, if accepted, was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider, and the trial judge’s direction on the offence was clear and accurate. The evidence did not require a separate direction on abandonment, the court said.
Other grounds concerned a disputed phrase attributed to V.H. after his arrest, a line in a Garda interview memorandum, jury directions and alleged prejudice during the trial. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge acted within discretion on the contested evidence and rejected the remaining challenges. It dismissed the appeal.