Court of Appeal dismisses appeal of convictions for rape, assault and threats to kill arising from an attack with a hammer by the appellant on his wife and her mother, on the grounds that: (a) the jurors had been adequately and sufficiently warned and advised in relation to their suitability to serve on the jury, without specific reference to the potential for racial bias; (b) the trial judge had been correct to refuse to sever the indictment since there was an obvious and close connection between the incidents relevant to the different counts; (c) the manner in which the trial judge had dealt with questions regarding whether the appellant had muttered the words “you fucker” when in close proximity to garda witnesses within the court room was satisfactory; and (d) the trial judge had been correct to reject the application to call a garda witness who the Director of Public Prosecutions did not consider to be witness of truth.
Criminal law – appeal of convictions for rape, assault and threats to kill and injure his wife – refusal to sever the Indictment which contained multiple unrelated counts – warning to prospective jurors to address potential for racial bias – Juries Act 1976 – jury in this case were adequately and sufficiently warned and advised in relation to their suitability to serve on the jury – Section 6(3) of the Criminal Justice (Administration) Act 1924 – trial judge was correct in her refusal to accede to the application to sever the Indictment – bad character evidence – jury did not need to be discharged after the appellant had muttered the words “you fucker” when in close proximity to garda witnesses within the court room – whether a garda who the complainant had made a complaint against should be called as a prosecution witness – appeal dismissed