The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas Mooney’s appeal against his convictions for indecent assault, finding no legal requirement to record the statement he gave to gardaí in 2010. The court said recording available interview facilities was preferable in similar situations, particularly where serious criminal activity was being investigated.
Mooney was convicted in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in July 2014 of eight counts of indecent assault. Three counts resulted in concurrent four-year sentences, with the final two years suspended on conditions. The other five convictions were taken into consideration. He was placed on the Sex Offenders Register in relation to the three sentenced counts.
The offences involved a child under 15 and occurred between July 1983 and June 1985 at Mooney’s home, where he occupied a basement flat at 33 Gardiner Street, Dublin. The judgment said the child was persuaded to go to the flat and perform sexual acts in return for payment.
The appeal concerned the admissibility of a statement Mooney gave at Mountjoy garda station on 6 July 2010. He had met gardaí unexpectedly at a friend’s address, was cautioned and agreed to accompany them to the station. He was not arrested and was told he was a suspect. Mooney later maintained that he believed he had no choice but to go. He had not asked for a solicitor and gardaí did not advise him to speak to one.
The statement was dictated and written down by an interviewing garda during an approximately one-hour interview. The interview and dictation were not recorded, although a recording system was available. A video recording of the statement being read back to Mooney was played to the appeal court. The trial judge had admitted the statement after ruling it voluntary, given after proper caution, and obtained through a fair process.
Mooney argued that his limited intellectual capacity, and evidence that he did not understand the caution, meant the statement should have been excluded. The appeal court said the read-back recording showed him attentive, confirming the statement’s accuracy and acknowledging it as his own. It found nothing to suggest he had not understood the caution or was in a vulnerable state requiring special measures.
The court concluded that Mooney had gone to the station voluntarily and that there was no evidence of an inappropriate or deliberate avoidance or delay of arrest. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment did not require that such interviews be recorded, but said using available recording facilities was preferable in comparable circumstances.