Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for rape, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the fact that there was a basis for challenging a witness's evidence with a view to undermining it did not mean that the evidence should have been excluded; (b) pointing out that the defence has posited no credible reason for a complainant inventing allegations merely speaks to a weakness in the defence’s position as opposed to shifting the onus of proof onto the defence; and (c) the decision on whether or not to give a corroboration warning was a matter for the trial judge's discretion and there was no basis for interfering where he had gone about the decision in a careful and conscientious way.
Appeal against conviction for one count of attempted rape and four counts of rape - complainant young cousin of appellant - complainant was just under 8 years old at date of first offence in 1984 - appellant then aged 17 - later offences occurred after the appellant moved in with complainant's family - complainant's brother also living there at the time but did not give evidence at an earlier inconclusive trial and attended part of the trial - whether trial judge wrongly admitted the evidence of the complainant's brother and thereby breached the principle of fundamental fairness - whether trial judge undermined defence closing speech by stating that a failure to supply an alternative motive for the complaint did not constitute a reversal of the burden of proof - whether trial judge erred in failing to give a corroboration warning - whether trial judge wrongly charged the jury as to the paucity of cross-examination on the issue of dominion/delay - whether trial judge erred in instructing jury to disregard defence counsel’s comment that the complainant subsequently going to live with the father of the appellant was inconsistent with her complaint - whether trial judge erred in instructing the jury as to the appellant's memorandum of interview - whether trial judge wrongly received a verdict while a question raised by the jury was being addressed.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now