The Court of Appeal has dismissed B.S.’s appeal against a rape conviction, rejecting claims that his trial defence was inadequately presented and that evidence from a hotel porter could not be treated as corroboration.
B.S. was convicted by a majority verdict on 22 March 2013 of rape, contrary to section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981. The appeal concerned an incident on 26 July 2010 at a hotel owned by B.S. The complainant, who was 17 and employed by him, said he attacked her in the hotel’s presidential suite. Those details formed the background to the appeal; the Court of Appeal was deciding whether the conviction should stand, not determining guilt at a new trial.
B.S. argued that his trial lawyers had failed to properly explore how long he and the complainant spent in the suite. The complainant estimated 20 to 30 minutes, while B.S. later said he believed they had been there for more than two hours. A hotel key-card record showed a key for the suite was cut at 3.23am. The porter, identified in the judgment as WG, said he gave B.S. the key in the bar and did not see him again before returning sometime between 4am and 5am. The first taxi call was made at 5.07am.
The Court of Appeal said there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the pair spent longer in the suite than the complainant estimated. But it found that the failure to put a two-hour period directly to her would not have had an important and material effect on the trial. The complainant was uncertain about the timing, and the jury had other evidence to consider. The court also said a defence question suggesting she spent half an hour in the suite was asked in the context of the period after the alleged attack. The court called that suggestion an error but concluded it did not make the conviction unsafe.
The appellant also challenged the trial judge’s direction that WG’s account of the complainant appearing panicked as she left could amount to corroboration. B.S. had told gardaí that nothing in the suite had been said that would upset her. The appeal court held that, in that context, WG’s observation was capable in law of corroborating her account. It said the trial judge had warned the jury that this was not strong corroboration.
The court rejected both grounds and dismissed the appeal against conviction.