The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Prior’s appeal against two indecent assault convictions, upholding the convictions after rejecting arguments about the evidence, a corroboration warning and the burden of proof.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered on 24 November 2016 by Mr Justice Birmingham, with Mr Justice Sheehan and Mr Justice Mahon also on the court. The appeal concerned conviction only; the court said it did not address the separate appeal against sentence.
Prior was convicted on 14 July 2016 after a six-day jury trial and two days of deliberations. The majority verdict was 11-1 on each of the two counts. The jury could not agree on three other counts. He was later sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on 27 July.
The allegations concerned incidents said to have taken place in summer 1985, when the complainant was aged 10 and visiting Ireland from the United States with her older sister. The judgment said the girls stayed for about two to three weeks at a Dublin 4 bed and breakfast run by Prior and his wife, who was the complainant’s maternal aunt. The alleged incidents were said to have occurred in the house, in a car on a shopping trip, or in a store changing room. The complainant made a statement to gardaí in June 2011.
Prior argued that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury, that the trial judge should have given a corroboration warning, and that the directions on the burden of proof were deficient. His appeal submissions cited alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts, the sequencing of incidents and the busy household. The Court of Appeal said the transcript had limitations but described the complainant as an impressive witness. It found no basis to withdraw the case, which it said was for the jury to assess beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial judge told jurors there was no independent corroboration and asked them to examine the complainant’s evidence closely, but declined to give the warning sought by the defence. The appeal court held that decision was within the trial judge’s discretion and was not manifestly wrong or based on an incorrect legal basis. It also rejected the challenge to the burden-of-proof directions, finding no impropriety in the prosecution closing address.
The court dismissed all grounds of appeal against conviction and affirmed the convictions. The judgment records no decision on the appeal against sentence.