The Court of Appeal has dismissed D N’s appeal against convictions for two counts of oral rape and four counts of sexual assault involving a boy who was 12 when the offending began. The appeal concerned only the refusal to give the jury a corroboration warning; the judgment did not deal with the separate appeal against sentence.
The court said the offences took place between about March 2005 and September 2006. The complainant knew D N, who was a priest involved in the management of the local school. The judgment says the boy helped him with gardening and was invited into his parochial home and, at times, another house. The complainant testified that the first incident took place in D N’s bedroom and that he did not understand what he was doing.
The offences came to light after the complainant visited his GP in late 2013 or 2014 because of pain from injuries caused by digital penetration. D N denied the allegations when questioned in 2014 and pleaded not guilty at trial. A jury convicted him in the Central Criminal Court on 9 March 2017. He received concurrent prison terms of eight years for each rape count and four years for each sexual assault count, to begin after a sentence he was already serving for a separate offence. The judgment also records sex-offender registration and four years of post-release supervision.
On appeal, D N argued that inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence required a warning. His counsel cited differences about dates linked to the complainant’s confirmation, the number of oral-sex incidents described in civil and criminal proceedings, and when the complainant understood the conduct was wrong. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the trial judge had discretion and that the appeal court should intervene only if the decision rested on an incorrect legal basis or was clearly wrong in fact. The trial judge had given the jury a warning about delay.
The Court of Appeal said a corroboration warning was discretionary and required an evidential basis to question a witness’s reliability. It considered the cited inconsistencies and vagueness within the normal range, noting the complainant’s explanation that he may have confused oral sex and kissing. The court said the trial judge had the opportunity to assess the witness and had not applied the wrong legal test. It was not satisfied that the refusal was legally incorrect or clearly wrong in fact, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.