A Corkman jailed for seven years in July, 1996, for sexually assaulting his former girlfriend's teenage daughter over a number of years, had his conviction quashed yesterday by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Circuit Court had imposed a five-year sentence on each of three charges, the sentences to run concurrently. A two-year sentence was imposed on a further charge, to run consecutive to the five-year terms. Ten further two-year sentences were imposed, to run concurrently with the others.
Giving the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice Barron said two major questions arose for decision in the appeal. The first was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to acquit and the second related to the adequacy of the charge.
The question to be determined was whether a verdict of guilty on this evidence, by a jury properly charged, would have been perverse.
It appeared to the court this was so.
There were very considerable inconsistencies in the evidence for the prosecution, he said. There must be a doubt as to whether specific incidents in 1990 and 1993 occurred at all. Had either incident been the sole element of inconsistency, then it would have been for the jury to consider whether such inconsistency was something which could not be overlooked or could be explained. Where both incidents were so inconsistent, having regard to their importance as being the only extrinsic factors in weighing the complainant's evidence, it would be unsafe to allow the matter to go to the jury.
In the view of the Court of Criminal Appeal an application for a direction to acquit should have been allowed.
Mr Justice Barron referred to remarks made by the trial judge in the course of the trial and at the beginning of the charge and said they were unfortunate. The court had no doubt they must have influenced the jury in coming to its verdict.
He said the trial judge had referred to the complainant and her evidence in such a way that he clearly gave it the seal of approval.
In all the circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeal would have ordered a new trial if the matter had been properly left to the jury, the judge said.
However, the court was of the view that a verdict of guilty on the evidence produced before the jury would have resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, it was quashing the conviction and would not order a retrial.