or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for attempted rape and s. 4 rape, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the trial judge very clearly directed the jury on the discrepancy between the complainant's evidence and the objective facts as to the appellant's penis implants and gave a corroboration warning, so the jury could have been left in no doubt whatsoever that this was a central issue in their consideration of the complainant’s overall reliability; (b) the essential principles to be applied and the causal connection between the rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence were sufficiently explained by the trial judge to the jury; and (c) the trial judge had been acting within the permissible range of discretion in admitting certain impugned evidence.
Appeal against conviction for attempted rape and s. 4 rape - appellant is father of complainant - appellant had implants in his penis at the time of the offences that were visible to the eye - complainant gave evidence that implants were not there - described by appellant as fundamental inconsistency in the evidence - whether trial judge erred in refusing to exclude evidence of the appellant's alleged reply to caution when arrested - whether trial judge erred in refusing application to exclude material from Garda interviews - whether trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury - whether trial judge erred in refusing to direct verdicts of not guilty at the close of the prosecution case on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to ground a conviction - whether judge's charge rendered trial unfair and verdict unsafe.
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.