The Court of Appeal has dismissed Slawomir Gierlowski’s appeal against convictions for sexual assault, false imprisonment and assault causing harm involving three women in Clondalkin. The court upheld the decision to try the incidents together and rejected challenges to the jury and to the lawfulness of his detention.
A jury at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court convicted Gierlowski. On 17 May 2018, he was sentenced to a total of 22½ years in prison, with the final four years suspended subject to conditions. The appeal, decided on 19 January 2021, challenged the joint trial, the refusal to discharge the jury, detention after his arrest in June 2016, and an extension of detention under a later arrest warrant.
The incidents described in the judgment took place in 2011, 2015 and 2016. The first woman told the trial that she was attacked while returning home at night on Monastery Walk; she suffered a fractured nose and facial bruising. The second said she was restrained with a belt and tape on the same road in 2015. In 2016, the third woman said an attacker approached her in a pedestrian laneway with a knife and cloth. She suffered tendon injuries to three fingers.
The Court of Appeal found that the offences were sufficiently similar in law and fact to be tried together. It also concluded that DNA evidence linking Gierlowski to each incident, alongside common features identified in the prosecution’s case, supported the trial judge’s refusal to separate the first woman’s counts. The court dismissed that appeal ground.
The appeal also concerned a detective’s inadvertent mention of a person identified in the judgment as “XY”, whose alleged offences were not on trial, and redactions visible on a forensic scientist’s notes. The court said the detective corrected the name immediately and that the jury had not been given specific information about another complaint. It found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s decision not to discharge the jury.
Gierlowski argued that a delay between arriving at Clondalkin Garda Station and formal detention after his arrest on 1 June 2016 made the detention unlawful. The court found no unreasonable delay, noting that he was informed of his rights while the custody record was obtained. It also ruled that the later warrant, issued under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, authorised detention in relation to the offences listed in it. The challenged extension and change in questioning did not make his detention unlawful.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment did not decide a fresh challenge to the sentence.