The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed M.J.’s application for leave to appeal his convictions for four counts of indecent assault against his daughter, Ms. H. The judgment, delivered by McKechnie J. on 3 June 2014, upheld the trial judge’s decisions on the appeal grounds considered by the court.
M.J. was convicted by a unanimous jury at Dublin Circuit Court on 22 March 2010. The charges concerned alleged assaults between 1981 and 1984. He had previously been convicted on the same counts in 2006, but that conviction was quashed in 2008 over concerns about the length and circumstances of the jury’s deliberations. At a later hearing, he was sentenced to six years in prison, with the final three years suspended on terms and conditions.
A central appeal issue was evidence from four family members about a confrontation in the early 1990s. The prosecution said M.J. admitted sexually abusing Ms. H. during the confrontation. The accounts differed on when and where events began, what was said, and other details. The appeal court held that these inconsistencies went to the weight of the evidence for the jury to assess. It said the evidence was capable of supporting a finding that M.J. had made a general admission concerning Ms. H.
The court also rejected the argument that such an admission could not be connected to the specific counts because it did not identify dates, locations or acts. It said the admission could corroborate Ms. H.’s evidence about the charged incidents if the jury accepted that evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The admission alone could not establish the specific assaults if the jury rejected her account. The court noted that M.J. had been acquitted of other similar charges involving Ms. H.; evidence relating only to those acquitted allegations could not support conviction on the four counts under appeal.
M.J. argued that the age and imprecision of the allegations made a fair trial impossible and that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury. The appeal court found that Ms. H. had given details about the alleged assaults, the witnesses had been rigorously cross-examined, and the defence had not shown a specific barrier to presenting its case. It upheld the trial judge’s refusal to stop the prosecution.
The court further found that the judge’s recharge corrected shortcomings in the original jury directions, including on inferences and the relationship between the alleged admission and the specific charges. It did not decide whether section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 applied to the admission evidence, because that issue was not included in the grounds of appeal. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal on all grounds; it did not order a new trial.