Garda’s failure to interview witnesses on collateral issues did not undermine fairness of rape trial

Edwards J: Criminal Law – appeal against conviction – forty eight counts of sexual assault – eleven counts of rape – thirteen counts of rape contrary to s.4 – complainant alleged regularly sexually assaulted and raped by appellant over a ten-year period – complainant was aged between 8 and 18 years – appellant was in a relationship with complainant’s mother – complainant would be boarded at her school during the week and lived with her mother and the appellant during the weekends and school holidays – abuse started when appellant started touching her outside her clothes and then inside her clothes – this progressed to digital penetration and appellant making her touch his penis – complainant went to live in a different village and abuse continued – abuse then turned into groping of her breasts and regular vaginal sexual intercourse and occasional anal intercourse – complainant was in fear of appellant during the period of abuse – appellant used to go shooting and had a gun in the bedroom – she would cry, scream and plead to appellant to desist but appellant would point to the gun case and say he had those – husband of the complaint gave evidence – judge directed the jury that it did not constitute corroboration of the complaint – appellant gave evidence in his defence, denying the charges and confirming denials made to Gardaí under cautioned interview – appellant’s son and daughter-in-law also gave evidence for the defence – whether the trial judge erred in law and in fact thereby rendering the conviction unsafe and unsound – whether the trial judge erred in refusing to find that the Gardaí had failed in their duty to seek and preserve evidence – whether the trial judge failed to distinguish or adequately distinguish in her directions to the jury, the effects of delay on a case – whether the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury as to how to fairly determine the issue of the application of the standard of proof in the context of allegations of offences characterised by vagueness – appellant has failed to establish that he faced a real risk of unfairness in his trial – trial judge gave appropriate delay warning as well as appropriate corroboration warning – suggestion that the complainant’s evidence was vague is rejected – no obligation on trial judge to give a special warning to the jury concerning the failure of Garda Doyle to interview witnesses as to collateral issues – appeal dismissed.