The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the convictions of a man identified as M.D. for offences against his nephew, finding that the trial was fair and the verdicts safe. The judgment, delivered on 7 June 2018 by Mr Justice Edwards, addressed the convictions only; the appeal against sentence was outside its scope.
M.D. was convicted by a Central Criminal Court jury in November 2016 of eight counts of indecent assault, one count of anal rape and one count of sexual assault. The offences were alleged to have occurred between May 1988 and April 1991. The jury heard the ten counts after the trial judge directed acquittals on the other 26 counts on the indictment. In February 2017, M.D. received concurrent sentences, including ten years for anal rape. The Court of Appeal did not decide the sentence appeal in this judgment.
The appellant argued that the case should have been withdrawn from the jury because of delay, an inadequate Garda investigation and the risk that the jury would be prejudiced after hearing evidence relating to counts later withdrawn. He pointed to the absence of photographs or plans of the family home, engineering evidence about a pigeon loft, and statements from most of the complainant’s siblings. He also relied on uncertainty about dates and changes in aspects of the complainant’s account.
The Court of Appeal rejected the investigation arguments. It said photographs or plans of the house and a survey of the pigeon loft would have been aids to presenting the case, rather than evidence with a bearing or potential bearing on guilt or innocence. No specific incident was tied to the loft in a way that made its dimensions central, and the complainant’s account of it was tested in cross-examination and not impeached. The court also found that the siblings could speak only to collateral matters: the complainant had said the sexual offences occurred when he was alone with M.D. It noted that the defence could have sought to interview the siblings or arrange an inspection, but there was no suggestion it had done so.
On delay, the court found that M.D. had not established prejudice creating a real risk of an unfair trial. The trial judge had given a delay warning, which was not challenged on appeal. The court also held that the directions to the jury were sufficient to address possible prejudice from evidence about counts withdrawn from its consideration. Although it said an express instruction to disregard that evidence might have been better, the instructions were adequate when viewed as a whole.
The court considered the complaints individually and cumulatively, and also assessed whether the evidence was too weak to go to a jury. It concluded that the issues raised were for the jury to resolve, and dismissed the appeal against conviction.