Two men who were jailed as part of the Munster abuse trial for the rape, abuse and exploitation of their child relatives must await their appeal fates after seeking to overturn their convictions over a letter sent to the trial judge by a juror.
The two-day conviction appeal by both men, who were uncles of their victims, has concluded at the Court of Appeal, where the three presiding judges reserved their ruling in both matters.
The 2021 trial heard harrowing evidence that the child victims were small and thin for their age and suffered a range of issues while in the care of their parents including chronic tooth decay, dietary problems and low weight, recurring head lice and scabies, third degree sunburn and marks and scarring to their bodies. They had a wide range of behavioural issues including hyper-vigilance, over-compliance and anxiety.
The court heard that after they were placed in care, the eldest three children started to make disclosures in relation to sexual abuse at the hands of their parents and other relatives, leading to their arrests in 2018.
In January 2022 at the Central Criminal Court, the children's two uncles were jailed for 15 years each by Mr Justice Paul McDermott for abusing the three children – a niece and two nephews. The two men cannot be named in order to protect the identity of the three children.
Both men had pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Reporting restrictions put in place by the trial judge to neither publish the exact nature of the abuse the children suffered nor report the contents of the letter written by the juror were to remain in place, the Court of Appeal ruled on Wednesday.
Altogether, the five family members were found guilty by the jury on all but one of the 78 counts against them following a 10-week trial held at Croke Park in summer 2021. They were all found guilty of sexually abusing the children on dates between August 2014 and April 2016, while the parents were found guilty of wilfully neglecting five of the children, who were aged between one and nine during this period.
After the verdicts were returned, it emerged that the jury foreman had written a letter to Mr Justice McDermott.
Conor Devally SC, defending the children's now 29-year-old maternal uncle, unsuccessfully sought leave to apply to have the verdicts set aside in the wake of the letter.
Counsel had submitted that as a result of this letter from the juror, his client faced the possibility that “the achievement of the verdicts in his case was unfair or tainted”.
“It has left both my client and any objective observer to see that justice has not been seen to be done here,” Mr Devally said. Andrew Sexton SC, defending the children's now 51-year-old uncle, had supported Mr Devally's submissions.
Bernard Condon SC said the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions was that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to set aside verdicts in the case and no authority to contact and question jurors.
Mr Condon had said what happens in the jury room is “absolutely privileged”. “There is absolute secrecy”, he said.
In his ruling on the application, Mr Justice McDermott said he was satisfied that, as trial judge, he had no jurisdiction to set aside the verdict of a jury once it had been delivered in court and the jury had been discharged.
He said he was satisfied the letter from the juror did not contain evidence to suggest any impropriety had taken place and could not be used by him, as trial judge, as a basis for any inquiry.
Mr Sexton and Mr Devally said their clients were appealing their convictions on the basis of the contents of the letter that was sent to the trial judge.
At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, the State, represented by Eilis Brennan SC and Mr Condon, said the jury person who wrote the letter raised no issue during the trial and nor did any other member of the jury, who deliberated on their verdicts for 20 hours.
“No communication with a juror after the trial has been permitted in Ireland for good and substantial reason,” submitted Mr Condon.
“It is readily apparent that the motion seeks to commence a process that would culminate ultimately in the cross-examination of the juror,” submitted counsel.
The State submitted that jurors “must be able to deliberate in privacy with confidence that what they say will not be revealed”.
Counsel said the men's application should be dismissed and that the trial judge dealt with the matter in accordance with law.
"No reasonable, objective person could have any doubts about the validity of the jury verdict,” submitted counsel.
