The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed two sexual assault convictions against M.R. after finding the jury’s direction on one count was unclear and expressing concern that pressure over a juror’s childcare arrangements may have affected deliberations on the other. It declined to order a retrial, finding one would not be appropriate or just.
M.R. had been convicted in February 2008 of two counts relating to alleged assaults on D.G. on 15 May 2006. The first conviction was unanimous; the second was by a 10–2 majority. The appeal court treated the application for leave to appeal as the hearing of the appeal and quashed both convictions.
On the first count, the court said the complainant’s account was that M.R. touched her breast and vagina, while he admitted touching her breast but denied touching her vagina. The trial judge told jurors they could convict on either basis but did not clearly direct them that they had to agree on the act or acts underlying their verdict. The appeal court said the count had not sufficiently distinguished the alleged acts and the direction was confused. It held the conviction was unsafe.
The court also considered the second count, for which the jury had not reached a unanimous verdict by 5.15pm. A juror was anxious about collecting her six-year-old child from a crèche by 6pm. The judge suspended deliberations while Gardaí arranged to collect the child; the juror remained in court during that discussion. The jury resumed at 5.31pm and returned a 10–2 guilty verdict at 5.53pm.
The appeal court found the judge had handled the practical problem reasonably, and that the juror’s separation from the rest of the jury did not itself make a verdict unsafe. But it said the childcare issue placed pressure on the juror that may have spilled over to the jury, which knew, or some members of which knew, of her anxiety to leave. The court found a real likelihood of pressure to reach a decision and said jurors should deliberate free from time pressure.
The court also criticised prosecuting counsel’s personal opinions on witness credibility as inappropriate, but concluded the remarks did not make the trial unfair. M.R. had received concurrent two-year sentences, running from 30 April 2008, and had served more than 14 months by the time of the appeal judgment.