The Court of Appeal has dismissed M.D.’s appeal against his convictions for raping his former wife and sexually assaulting his daughter, finding no basis to intervene in the trial judge’s decisions on the issues pursued.
The court had told the parties on 29 July 2025 that the appeal was dismissed, with written reasons to follow. Its judgment, delivered by Mr Justice MacGrath for the court on 7 October 2025, sets out those reasons. The appeal concerned the convictions; the court did not conduct a new trial.
A jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts on counts 1 to 27 on 1 December 2022. The counts comprised three rape offences against M.D.’s former wife and 24 sexual assaults against his daughter. The trial judge directed not-guilty verdicts on counts 29 to 31, which concerned allegations by the daughter. M.D. received concurrent prison terms of 12 years and six months on each rape count and eight years and six months on each sexual-assault count, backdated to 1 December 2022. He denied all the allegations.
The appeal grounds considered by the court challenged the refusal to separate the charges involving the former wife from those involving the daughter; admission of evidence about an alleged 1995 assault on the former wife; aspects of the prosecution’s cross-examination about a notebook M.D. brought into the witness box; and refusal of a requested corroboration warning. Two further grounds were not pursued.
On joinder, the appeal court said the trial judge had considered the similarities and differences between the allegations and applied the relevant statutory test. It held that the differences, including the complainants’ ages, their relationships to M.D. and the locations of the alleged offences, did not require separate trials. The court also found the arguments about possible contamination did not justify intervention.
The 1995 incident was uncharged background evidence. The trial judge admitted it to help explain the relationship and the former wife’s alleged fear and delayed complaint, and told the jury the purpose for which it could be considered. The appeal court found no error in that ruling. On the notebook, it described the prosecution questioning as possibly “somewhat overenthusiastic”, but found it did not cause prejudice warranting intervention; the trial judge had stopped a later line of questioning she considered speculative and addressed the issue in her directions to the jury. The court also found no substance in the argument about waiver of legal professional privilege.
The court held that the trial judge had exercised her discretion appropriately in refusing a corroboration warning, having considered the cited inconsistencies and delay. It noted that a delay warning had been given and was not challenged on appeal. Having rejected all grounds pursued, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.