The Court of Appeal has dismissed E O’R’s appeal against conviction on eight counts of rape, five counts of indecent assault and 12 counts of sexual assault.
The court delivered judgment on 7 February 2025. It rejected all three grounds of appeal: that the indictment should have been split into separate trials, that five counts should have been withdrawn because the appellant was under 14 when the alleged acts occurred, and that the jury should have been discharged after it heard evidence about an uncharged allegation.
The convictions followed a unanimous jury verdict at the Central Criminal Court, sitting at Croke Park, on 23 February 2022. The appellant was acquitted on two other sexual assault counts. He was sentenced on 30 May 2022 to concurrent terms amounting to 12 years in prison, with the final year suspended for three years on conditions.
The indictment involved five complainants, all described in the judgment as close family relations of the appellant. The defence argued that conversations among the complainants before they made statements to gardaí created a risk of collusion or mutual contamination. It also argued that the count involving an adult complainant should have been tried separately.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had correctly applied the principles in earlier cases. It held that family relationships and discussions about allegations did not, by themselves, establish collusion or contamination. The court said the complainants’ evidence was cross-admissible and found no unfairness in trying the counts together.
The court also rejected the argument concerning doli incapax, the presumption that a child under 14 lacked criminal capacity. The five counts at issue related to alleged conduct when the appellant was between 10 and 13. The appeal court said the trial judge had correctly left it to the jury to decide whether the prosecution evidence could rebut the presumption that the appellant did not know the alleged conduct was seriously wrong. The appeal court did not decide that question afresh.
The final ground concerned a witness’s undisclosed second statement, which referred to alleged sexual misconduct not charged in the indictment. The appeal court noted that the evidence emerged during cross-examination, that the prosecution’s failure to disclose the statement was an oversight, and that the trial judge directed the jury to disregard anything from the witness beyond her limited relevant evidence. The court rejected the challenge and dismissed the appeal.