Court of Appeal: Primary school teacher who raped his wife’s sister fails in challenge to conviction

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

The man sought to challenge, inter alia, the admissibility of evidence from several witnesses – but delivering the judgment of the three-judge Court, Mr Justice George Birmingham could find no issue with the trial judge’s findings and dismissed all six grounds of appeal.

Background

The complainant was the youngest of six children, and the appellant (S. O’C), a primary school teacher, was first the boyfriend and later the husband of one of the complainant’s older sisters.

The prosecution case was that the appellant began sexually abusing the complainant when she was aged six years of age in 1981, until 1993 when she was aged 18. A single count of rape was alleged to have occurred in the appellant’s home in 1987.

In November 2014, the appellant was convicted in the Central Criminal Court of one count of rape and 115 counts of indecent assault/sexual assault.

Subsequently he was sentenced to ten year’s imprisonment on the rape charge and to concurrent five year terms in respect of each of the counts of sexual assault/indecent assault.

Court of Appeal

The appellant sought to appeal his conviction, and Mr Justice Birmingham summarised the grounds of appeal to be that the judge erred in:

And finally, that the verdict was perverse and inconsistent.

Recent fabrication

In relation to the first ground, Justice Birmingham held that it was clear that the judge felt that there would be a real unfairness if the jury was left with the false impression that there was no complaint until recent times.

The nature of the cross examination brought the question of complaint centre stage and in those circumstances, Justice Birmingham was satisfied that the judge had not exceeded his discretion when he permitted the jury to hear what the complainant had told her friend and the psychiatrist who was treating her.

Civilian witnesses

On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that the evidence was potentially very prejudicial, and that it was neither relevant or necessary as per DPP v McNeill 2 IR 669.

The admitted evidence ranged from people who had witnessed the appellant naked in the house with the complainant, and primary school friends of the complainant who described “naked gymnastics” occurring while at the appellant’s house

Rejecting this ground of appeal, Justice Birmingham observed while it was not suggested that any criminal activity took place on the occasion when the friends were present, their evidence did provide support for the complainant’s evidence and did provide support for the proposition that the relationship that the appellant had with the complainant was not a normal or healthy one.

Accordingly, Justice Birmingham was satisfied that the evidence was relevant to a fact in issue and was probative.

Recalled witnesses

In grounds 3 and 4, the appellant contended that recalling the witnesses and calling the mother of one of the then schoolgirls in rebuttal was in breach of the rule relating to the finality of answers given to collateral questions.

Justice Birmingham said that while the Court was not convinced that the issue was of such central significance that there was any necessity to seek to lead rebuttal evidence – but that having regard to how the issue had arisen and what had happened at earlier stages of the trial, that the ruling was appropriate.

Delay

When the matter came on for trial, the offences were alleged to have taken place between 21 years and 34 years previously. The judge indicated to counsel that he would be giving a delay warning and a corroboration warning.

Rejecting this ground of appeal, Justice Birmingham was satisfied that the judge’s treatment of the delay issue, while brief, was adequate and tailored to the circumstances of the case.

The verdict

The final ground of complaint was in relation to the jury convicting the appellant of one count of rape and 115 counts of indecent assault, but acquitting him on 27 counts.

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the acquittals were inconsistent with the guilty verdicts, and that if the jury did not accept the evidence of the complainant in respect of early and later counts as well as certain other counts that it must be that they had significant doubts about the reliability and veracity of the complainant’s evidence.

Dismissing this ground of appeal, Justice Birmingham said that the jury’s verdict was indicative of a jury approaching its task with particular care and deliberation.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all grounds of appeal advanced by the appellant.