A rapist uncle, who argued his right to a fair trial was breached after an anonymous letter claimed that jurors began their deliberations early and were allegedly bullied, has failed in his bid to have the conviction overturned.
The now 72-year-old, who cannot be identified to protect the victim’s identity, was jailed after he was found guilty of raping his niece at the woman’s grandparent’s farmhouse in the south of the country in 1978.
He had been convicted by a unanimous verdict following a trial at the Central Criminal Court two years ago, and was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment by Mr Justice Paul Coffey in February 2020.
The woman – who lived in England at the time of the offence – was aged 16 and was in this country to visit relatives when she was raped by her uncle.
The man, who had pleaded not guilty to a single charge of rape contrary to common law, later appealed the conviction on the grounds the verdict reached by the jury was "perverse, unsafe and unsatisfactory".
Early deliberations
In his submission to the Court of Appeal, Patrick Gageby SC, for the appellant, said a letter sent to the lower court in the aftermath of the trial indicated that the jurors "may have been deliberating the case while the trial was in progress".
The premature deliberations, counsel continued, may have started as early as the sixth day of the two-week trial.
The letter signed by a "Mr B" also raised the possibility that some jury members had been bullied by fellow jurors, the defence submission stated.
The correspondence, Mr Gageby said, raised an issue "in relation to the formation of an opinion [by the jury] before the jury had charged them".
"It cannot be a fair trial under the Constitution for a jury to begin their deliberations before they are charged," Mr Gageby told the three-judge court.
Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh – sitting with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, presiding, and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy – said the claims were of "such a magnitude" they raised a "constitutional concern".
Thomas O’Malley SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, however, said that there wasn’t "any evidence of anything being amiss" in the jury room.
He said that "on the basis of the transcript, there clearly wasn’t any evidence to support premature deliberations" by the jury members.
"There is no evidence before the court to support the claim the jury was in some way remiss in the way they had deliberated," Mr O’Malley continued.
He also said that jurors should be able to discuss cases "candidly and deliberate without fear or favour".
Dismissing the appeal on Thursday, Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the appellate court had considered the matter "very carefully" and its reasons for rejecting the grounds would be made available in a judgment to be published at a later date.
During the trial, the victim told the court she was raped as a child by "a wolf disguised as an uncle".
Victim impact
In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court, the woman said that it was "a sad story, but it is a true story" and described how her uncle raped her one night while her grandparents were "tucked up in bed".
She said the "wolf" came up the stairs and "gobbled me up until there was nothing left". She said he then went back downstairs and claimed nothing had happened.
The woman said she later watched as her mother "crumbled into dust" when told what her brother had done.
Although a sad story, she said she hoped for a happy ending.
"The little girl escaped from the wolf and survived" and would hopefully go on to live happily ever after, she told the court.
Following the guilty verdict, Kenneth Fogarty SC, defending, said that his client maintained his innocence. He said his client was married prior to the offence and claimed he was never unfaithful to his wife, who was now deceased.
On passing sentence, Mr Justice Coffey noted that the offence was aggravated by the victim being a child at the time, and that she had been raped in her grandparents' house where she was entitled to feel safe.
The judge also said the risk of re-offending was negligible, and that the man's poor health made him a poor candidate for prison.
