The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Peter Halligan against his convictions on two rape counts, finding no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury.
The convictions were entered in the Central Criminal Court on 31 January 2017. Halligan received concurrent prison sentences of eight years and five years, with the final two years suspended. The appeal judgment was delivered on 21 February 2019 by Mr Justice McCarthy, with President Birmingham and Mr Justice Kennedy also sitting.
The appeal challenged the jury directions on reasonable doubt and on Halligan’s decision not to give evidence. The court considered the arguments together with the charge as a whole, including the judge’s explanations of the presumption of innocence, the prosecution’s burden of proof and the rule that the accused was entitled to the benefit of any doubt.
On reasonable doubt, the appeal argued that the judge should have given the jury examples of important decisions in everyday life to help explain the standard. The trial judge added an illustration about choosing a child’s school after defence counsel raised the point. The Court of Appeal said there was no rule requiring judges to provide such examples and rejected the challenge.
The defence also argued that comments about accused people sometimes following legal advice not to testify could suggest a tactical reason for Halligan’s silence. The appeal court found that the judge had made clear that the jury must take “absolutely nothing” against him for not giving evidence. It said the direction, read in context, left no room for an adverse inference.
The judgment recounted that the complainant was 16 and walking home in Waterford on 24 July 2014 when she was attacked. The court referred to evidence including her prompt report to her mother, injuries, earrings found at the scene and semen on a mouth swab. It also described Halligan’s changing accounts to gardaí. These were matters discussed in the judgment’s account of the trial evidence, not new findings made during the appeal.
Concluding that the charge was fair and balanced and that the arguments did not cast doubt on the safety of the verdict, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds. It did not alter the convictions or sentences.