The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against his convictions for offences against his daughter, rejecting all four grounds he raised. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 10 October 2024, concerned convictions only; the court said the appeal against sentence was not addressed in this judgment.
A jury in the Central Criminal Court convicted the appellant on 1 December 2022 of four counts of rape, four counts of sexual assault, and one count each of threatening to kill or cause serious harm, attempting rape, false imprisonment and causing a child to watch sexual activity. The sentences imposed included 15 years’ imprisonment on each rape count and 10 years on each sexual assault count, all to run concurrently, with the final year of each rape sentence suspended on conditions. The Court of Appeal did not decide the sentence appeal here.
The convictions related to allegations by the appellant’s daughter, identified in the judgment as A. She told specialist interviewers that four incidents occurred at the family home between late December 2019 and the end of April 2020. The appellant denied the allegations. The defence argued at trial that A’s account was false and may have been prompted, and challenged the timing and circumstances of her disclosures.
The first two appeal grounds concerned the trial judge’s refusal to withdraw the case from the jury. The defence cited unavailable family WhatsApp messages, a five-week interval between A’s initial report to gardaí and her specialist interview, and the failure to secure a toolbox A had mentioned. The Court of Appeal said the witnesses were available for cross-examination about family communications, while the contents of missing messages were speculative. It also said the defence had not shown how securing the toolbox and knives would have assisted it. The court found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s decision that the trial was fair and the case could go to the jury.
The third ground concerned limits on questioning A’s mother about a medical examination. The court said the trial judge had restricted questions that could invite hearsay about the doctor’s findings, but had not prevented the defence from introducing medical evidence through lawful means, including by calling the doctor. It rejected that ground.
The final ground challenged the refusal to give the jury a corroboration warning. The Court of Appeal said the decision was within the trial judge’s discretion. It concluded that the suggested inconsistencies between A’s testimony and accounts attributed to her by family members were matters the jury could assess, and did not require a warning. The court dismissed the conviction appeal.