About this case:

• Court:
  Court of Appeal

The man was found guilty of a total of nine counts of ‘sexual touching of a person under 16’, seven of which involved penetration, and was sentenced to three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

The man’s complaints were in relation to the inconsistencies between his victim’s evidence, however the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the trial judge had warned the jury within his discretion outlined in R v Makanjuola.

The man also complained about the closing speech made by junior counsel for the prosecution, but the Court of Appeal was satisfied that there was nothing to render his conviction unsafe.  

Background

In May 2017, 41-year-old Stephen Meneice was convicted on ‘seven counts of sexual touching involving penetration of a person under 16 and two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16’.

The court heard that Mr Meneice had groomed the 14-year-old girl, his friend’s daughter, when he met her in July 2012. Between July 2012 and September 2012, Mr Meneice groomed his victim, who had a difficult home life, by ‘lavishing attention upon her’ and providing her with ‘cigarettes, alcohol and other gifts’. When the girl’s parents became aware what Mr Meneice had been doing to their daughter, they brought her to the police station to make a complaint in January 2013.

At this stage, Mr Meneice’s victim told the police that there had “only been one occasion of sexual activity”, but in May 2014, the girl said that she had been ‘too scared to speak before’ and made the allegations which constituted the other eight charges.

Warning to the Jury

At trial, the judge informed the jury that the evidence of the complainant was central to the prosecution case and reminded them that she had admitted telling a lie to the police and repeating it several times during the interview.

The trial judge reminded the jury that when asked in May 2014 about why she said this she replied “I was scared to speak before” and in cross-examination she added “I was not ready to tell them everything”.

The judge warned the jury that in light of her lies they should exercise considerable care in the analysis of her evidence.

The trial judge also addressed the jury about inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence particularly in relation to the location at which the offences had occurred and aspects of Mr Meneice’s appearance which were discussed in the course of the case.

Noting all of the above, the Court of Appeal said that the approach taken by a trial judge in directing a jury on unsupported evidence in sexual offence complaints is outlined in R v Makanjuola – which states that it is a matter of discretion for the judge as to whether to urge caution in relation to a particular witness and the terms on which that should be done. It also summarises the guidance for judges should they consider that a warning is required.

Rather than suggesting that the trial judge failed to take into account the lies and inconsistencies in the witness testimony, Mr Meneice’s complaint ‘came down to an assertion that the discretionary judgement of the trial judge was outside the range of that which was available to him’.

Emphasising the limited circumstances in which a court will interfere with such a judgment as per Makanjuola, the Court of Appeal held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s discretion in this case.

The Prosecution’s Closing Speech

Mr Meneice also criticised the closing speech which the prosecuting junior counsel presented to the jury, particularly:

1. The description of the background to the relationship between Mr Meneice and his victim,
2. Mr Meneice’s decision not to give evidence
3. Describing the victim’s actions in deleting messages from Mr Meneice as being “the most natural thing in the world”.

While the Court criticised some of the ‘colourful’ language used by the junior counsel – especially the ‘inappropriate speech’ in regards to Mr Meneice’s decision not to give evidence – the Court of Appeal was satisfied that nothing in the closing speeches rendered the conviction unsafe.

Mr Meneice’s final criticism related to whether there was collusion between the complainant, members of her family and her friends. The Court of Appeal noted that the issue of collusion was not raised in the discussion with the trial judge before speeches and was only touched on tangentially in the closing speech of defence counsel., as such, the issue of collusion added anything to the appellant’s case.

• by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News