The Court of Criminal Appeal refused Raymond Gormley leave to appeal his conviction for attempted rape, rejecting challenges to Garda entry into his apartment and the timing of his access to a solicitor.
Gormley had been charged with sexual assault and rape. On 7 November 2007, he was found not guilty of sexual assault and not guilty of rape, but guilty of attempted rape under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990.
The appeal concerned statements he made to Gardaí. The court heard that after the complainant identified him, Gardaí went to his apartment on a Sunday afternoon. The apartment door was open. The judgment records that Gormley invited Sergeant McGonigle in, after the Gardaí had entered and called out. Gormley then answered questions, including admitting that he had climbed a drainpipe and entered the complainant’s house through an upstairs window.
Gormley argued that the initial entry was an unlawful trespass, making his arrest and subsequent interviews unlawful. The court accepted that the Gardaí were trespassers when they first entered, because they had no invitation or licence at that point. But it held that Gormley’s invitation changed the status of their presence: from then on, they were authorised to remain. The court therefore rejected this ground as a basis for excluding the statements or treating the arrest as unlawful.
He also argued that the first interview began before he had reasonable access to a solicitor. He requested a solicitor at 2.15pm. The solicitor telephoned the station at 3.05pm and said he would arrive shortly after 4pm. The first interview ran from 3.10pm to 4.46pm, and the solicitor arrived at 4.48pm. Gormley made inculpatory admissions during that interview.
The appeal court said the trial judge was entitled to find that Gardaí had made reasonable, bona fide efforts to contact the nominated solicitor. It noted that the solicitor was not expected before 4pm and that the arrest took place on a Sunday. The court held that Gardaí may proceed with questioning while making reasonable efforts to contact a requested solicitor; it found no deliberate attempt to obstruct access in this case.
The court refused leave to appeal on both grounds. It did not allow the appeal or disturb the trial court’s admission of the statements.