A man “of some standing” in his community who repeatedly raped his friend's daughter when she was a child has appealed his conviction.
Lawyers for the man (67), who can't be named to protect the victim's identity, complained to the three-judge Court of Appeal that the trial judge should not have told the jury they could return a majority verdict in circumstances where there was evidence they had not yet "adjudicated" on some of the 32 counts against him.
At a conviction appeal today Michael Bowman SC, for the appellant, also argued that the trial judge should not have allowed the dates of the offences on the indictment to be changed after the prosecution had finished its closing speech to the jury.
The appellant was tried in 2017 and found guilty by a jury of six counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault, three counts of oral rape and one count of attempted oral rape at various locations between June 1991 and August 1992.
Victim
He was found not guilty of a further 16 counts of rape, indecent assault and sexual assault. His victim was aged between 12 and 14 at the time of the attacks.
Sentencing him following the trial, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the abuse had a “deep and long-lasting impact” on the victim, which continues to this day.
“These are very serious offences perpetrated on a young and vulnerable child by a man she believed to have social standing in the community and who was friends with her parents,” Ms Justice Kennedy said.
She said the man had engaged in a breach of trust when he abused a child of “tender years” and noted that he has not admitted guilt or expressed remorse for his actions.
Ms Justice Kennedy handed down a nine-year sentence, but suspended the final 12 months on a number of conditions.
Detective Garda Claire O'Shaughnessy previously told a sentence hearing that the man was a friend of the victim's parents and a “man of some standing” in his community.
He was in his late 30s and married when he carried out the abuse. The court heard the abuse started when the girl was raped and sexually assaulted at 12 years of age. The man forced her to give him oral sex on numerous occasions in two office locations, the court heard.
The abuse ended shortly before her 14th birthday.
Majority verdict
At a sentence hearing today Mr Bowman said that the jury had conducted their deliberations in chronological order and returned to the court on two occasions to deliver unanimous verdicts on two tranches of the counts against his client. Before they went back out, Mr Bowman said, the jury said they had "yet to adjudicate" on the rest of the counts. At that point the judge told the jury that they could bring majority rather than unanimous verdicts on the rest of the counts.
Mr Bowman told the Court of Appeal that juries are asked to bring a unanimous verdict to allow "an active period of debate". He said that one or more juror may take a view opposing the majority and should be given time to persuade their fellow jurors "through robust discussion and engagement with the facts".
The judge's decision, Mr Bowman said, meant the jury was not afforded an opportunity for debate on the remaining counts, and they duly returned with majority verdicts a little over one hour later.
Pauline Walley SC for the Director of Public Prosecutions disagreed with Mr Bowman's interpretation of the jury's statement that they had "not adjudicated" on the remaining counts. She said that the phrase meant they had not come to a "final conclusion" and she suggested that Mr Bowman was asking the court to speculate as to what was in the minds of the jurors. She added that a judge should not "interrogate the jury" while they are considering their verdict.
Mr Justice George Birmingham, presiding, with Mr Justice Brian Murray and Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy reserved judgement.
