The Court of Appeal has dismissed BM’s appeal against her conviction for defilement of a child under 17, finding no error in the trial judge’s admission of Facebook material or refusal to allow cross-examination on two specific matters.
BM was convicted by a majority verdict on 3 June 2022 of an offence under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006. The appeal judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 18 January 2024, addressed five grounds of appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, having upheld none of them.
The conviction arose from an incident on a date unknown between 1 April and 15 May 2016. The judgment states that BM was a social worker at a residential unit for boys where the complainant, then aged 16, lived and that she and other staff had responsibility for his care. It says he went to BM’s home to cut her grass, after which they had sexual intercourse. BM denied a sexual relationship when confronted by the unit manager, and the complainant initially denied one when interviewed by his assigned social workers.
The court considered whether Facebook messages admitted at trial had been properly obtained and authenticated. The Director of Public Prosecutions’ office generated a mutual assistance request referring to section 62 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 and identifying the Ireland-US treaty as the applicable convention. Ireland’s Central Authority transmitted it to the US authorities. The Court of Appeal concluded the request was made under the treaty and complied with it.
Facebook supplied material extending to 31 May 2016, although the request specified 1 April to 18 May. The court said the additional period did not require relevant, authenticated material to be excluded. It also found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the CD admitted at trial was connected to the Facebook authenticity certificate enclosed in the same package. The jury could still decide whether that connection was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial judge had allowed questioning about several aspects of the complainant’s prior sexual experiences but refused two lines of questioning. The appeal court found questioning about his report of witnessing a sexual incident involving other residents and an unconscious woman irrelevant to the issues. It also upheld refusal to question him about a social worker’s report describing “unsafe sexual encounters”: the note’s author and the source of its information were not established, and the underlying events had been explored through other permitted questioning.
The appeal court concluded the trial judge had not erred on the challenged issues and dismissed the appeal against conviction.