The Court of Appeal has dismissed Clement Limen’s appeal against his conviction for two counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, leaving the Central Criminal Court convictions in place.
A jury convicted Limen on 31 May 2017. The offences were said to have occurred at his home in Sligo on 2 June 2014. The appeal judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCarthy on 19 December 2019, records that the complainants were anonymised as Ms B and Ms Q.
The court considered five grounds of appeal. It rejected the argument that the trial judge’s handling of prosecution submissions about similarities between the complainants’ accounts made the trial unsatisfactory or the verdict unsafe. The trial judge had decided, with the defence’s agreement, not to address the issue in his charge to the jury. The appeal court said the phrase “striking similarity”, used in its ordinary sense, did not create a risk of injustice.
The court also upheld the trial judge’s ruling that gardaí lawfully entered Limen’s apartment to arrest him. The trial judge had found there was reasonable cause to suspect he was inside and that he ordinarily lived there. The appeal court said that finding was justified by the evidence, including Garda evidence that Limen lived there and footage showing him heading towards the apartment about an hour and a half before entry. It rejected the related challenge to evidence obtained after the arrest.
On the solicitor ground, the appeal court noted that no request had been made for Limen’s solicitor to attend the interviews after consulting with him. It nonetheless addressed the argument and held that the trial judge was right: the court said there was no right to have a solicitor physically present during interview.
The trial judge had admitted Limen’s first interview, conducted between 3.52pm and 6.57pm, but excluded a second interview later that evening. A doctor who examined him said he was coherent and fit for the first interview, despite signs of drinking and some unsteadiness. Limen gave evidence that he had been drinking heavily and had barely slept. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge’s conclusion on the first interview was justified and rejected that ground.
The appeal court dismissed the appeal. It did not quash the convictions or order a retrial.