The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a man identified as PM against his convictions for two counts of indecent assault, leaving the convictions and concurrent prison sentences in place.
The offences were alleged to have happened in 1988, when PM was 19 or 20 and the complainant was six. A jury at Cork Circuit Criminal Court convicted him by majority verdicts of 10 to two after a two-day trial in November 2016. In February 2017, he was sentenced to three years on each count, with the final 12 months suspended. The sentences were concurrent and backdated to the date he entered custody.
The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the complainant’s account. She said PM assaulted her on two occasions at his family home in County Cork after she had been sent there with a hair dryer. PM denied the allegations and said the complainant had never been inside his home.
One appeal ground concerned photographs taken after PM consented to a medical examination at a Garda station in July 2014. A doctor found a small mole on the mid-shaft of PM’s penis and said it was likely to have been present when he was 18 or 19. The complainant had described seeing a mole at the base. PM argued that the photographs were of little probative value, risked unfairly influencing the jury and had been admitted without the trial judge first hearing the doctor’s evidence on their admissibility.
The Court of Appeal held that the photographs and medical evidence were relevant and potentially probative. It said the difference over the mole’s location was for the jury to weigh in assessing the complainant’s evidence, and that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence.
PM’s second ground argued that the Gardaí had not explained the possible use of the examination and photographs or given a further caution before obtaining his consent. The court found that he had consented voluntarily, had been cautioned on arrest and again at the start of his interview, and had received notice of his rights. It said no additional caution was legally required for the examination or photographs, which it treated as objective evidence.
The court dismissed both grounds and the appeal. It did not set aside either conviction or sentence.