The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by N.R. (otherwise known as N.O’R.) against convictions for nine counts of rape and one count of child cruelty, concluding that none of the grounds argued undermined the fairness of the trial or the safety of the verdict.
The judgment, delivered electronically on 20 April 2021 by Birmingham P., concerned convictions entered after a 33-day Central Criminal Court trial in May 2016. The complainant, identified in the judgment as A, was 12 at the time of trial and gave evidence over nine days by video link from London, with the assistance of an intermediary. The appeal court said the length of time the child was required to give evidence was a matter of “very great concern”, while recognising that the case was unusually complex and difficult.
The appellant challenged the trial judge’s directions to the jury, admission of evidence about a camcorder recording and previous convictions, interview evidence, testimony from the complainant’s foster mother and social worker, and the prosecution’s repeated service of additional evidence during the trial.
The appeal court found the judge’s closing remarks to the jury did not steer them towards a conclusion about the complainant’s sexualised behaviour. It said the judge had identified possible explanations and repeatedly made clear that deciding between them was for the jury. The court also upheld the limited evidence allowed about a recording of consensual adult sexual activity: the recording itself was not shown to the jury, and a Garda could describe only specified features. The court considered the evidence relevant to parts of the complainant’s account.
The court found the admitted previous convictions relevant and not seriously damaging. It also held that the disputed interview extracts concerned matters that could legitimately be explored, and that the foster mother could refer to contemporaneous records of disclosures. The social worker’s evidence was limited to her experience of children retracting complaints before trial; she did not give an opinion that the original complaint should be believed.
The appellant’s complaint about additional evidence was treated as a subsidiary ground. The court said the defence had not been disadvantaged and found no basis to conclude that the additional material made the trial unfair or unsatisfactory.
The Court of Appeal rejected every ground and dismissed the appeal. The convictions therefore remained in place.