The Court of Appeal dismissed P. G.’s appeals against his conviction for rape and his eight-year prison sentence, with the final year suspended.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered on 10 February 2017 by Mr Justice Mahon, with Birmingham J. and Sheehan J. also on the panel. The appeal concerned a single conviction following a five-day trial at the Central Criminal Court in June and July 2016. P. G. argued that the trial judge had erred in law and fact in directing the jury on consent.
The prosecution raised a concern after the jury charge: that consent to sexual activity with Ms. G.’s husband would not mean consent to sex with P. G. The trial judge gave the jury a further direction, explaining that the prosecution case was that any consent that night was to activity with her husband, and not with anyone else. The Court of Appeal concluded that the directions comprehensively and fairly explained the issue and would have left the jury in no doubt on that point. It dismissed the conviction appeal.
The judgment recounted that Ms. G. was asleep in bed with her husband and their 18-month-old baby in their caravan in Belcamp Lane, Coolock, on the night of 7 March 2014. She awoke to a man in the bed and initially assumed he was her husband. The judgment said the man was P. G., who was attempting to have sex with her and penetrated her. She realised he was not her husband, woke her husband, and the man left after shouting. Ms. G. recognised him as her uncle. She later attended the Rotunda hospital’s Sexual Assault Treatment Unit, where no evidence of recent injury was noted.
On sentence, P. G. argued that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently reduced the eight-year headline term for mitigating factors. The appeal court recorded those factors as cooperation with the investigation, a reasonable approach to the trial, compliance with bail conditions, and personal circumstances. It also noted the sentencing judge’s view that a guilty plea would have allowed a reduction, as it would have spared the complainant the trauma of a full trial. The final year of the sentence had been suspended for five years after release, subject to conditions including no direct or indirect contact with Ms. G. or her immediate family. The sentence also included 12 months of post-release probation supervision.
The Court of Appeal found the sentence was within the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion and identified no error of principle. It dismissed the sentence appeal as well.