The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Roger Ryan’s application for leave to appeal his rape conviction, finding no basis to challenge the trial judge’s decision not to give the jury a corroboration warning.
The application had originally set out 10 grounds of appeal, but eight were abandoned before the hearing. The remaining two were narrowed to a complaint that the trial judge, Carney J., had declined to explain why he would not give the warning.
The appeal court said the exchange before closing speeches did not amount to a request supported by submissions. Defence counsel asked whether the judge intended to give a warning that there was no corroboration. The prosecution pointed to evidence of the complainant’s distress within an hour and a half of the alleged offence, which it said could amount to weak corroboration. The judge said it was not his intention to give a warning, and defence counsel replied, “Very good, My Lord.” No requisition was made after the judge’s charge.
The court said the judge’s intention was clear and no reasons had been advanced for exercising his discretion in favour of a warning. It noted that section 7 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 had made such a warning discretionary rather than mandatory. The court found no special feature in the evidence that made it improper to leave the issue to the jury, given conflicts in the evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
The judgment distinguished the earlier case DPP v Dolan. In that case, the defence expressly asked for a warning and the trial judge gave reasons the appeal court considered legally invalid. The court said Dolan did not establish a universal rule that trial judges must always give a reasoned ruling when asked to give a warning.
Ryan had been convicted of rape in a case involving events at the complainant’s home. The judgment summarised evidence that the complainant said she woke to find Ryan in bed and that he forced intercourse on her while threatening her with a screwdriver. The court’s decision concerned leave to appeal and the warning issue; it did not rehear the trial evidence or make new findings about the alleged offence.
The court refused leave to appeal against conviction. Ryan’s separate application for leave to appeal against sentence was withdrawn.