Father who repeatedly raped daughter (9) in the Midlands to remain behind bars

A father who was jailed for 14 years for the repeated rape of his nine-year-old daughter has failed in an appeal against his conviction, with the Court of Appeal ruling there was no basis to the man’s claim of possible collusion between the complainant and other witnesses.  

“Whether the complainant’s evidence was consistent or inconsistent with what she said to those to whom she had complained was uniquely a jury issue,” said Mr Justice John Edwards at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, rejecting the appeal by the 59-year-old man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his daughter.  

Following a Central Criminal Court trial in November 2022, a jury convicted the man of 11 offences, including rape, oral rape, sexual assault, false imprisonment, threatening to kill, and forcing a child to watch sexual activity. The abuse took place in the family home in the Midlands between December 2019 and April 2020, Lorcan Staines SC, prosecuting, told the court. The man was jailed for 14 years.  

The girl was nine years old at the time of the abuse. The court heard the family was very religious and the man told his daughter that the bible says a child must do what their father says. He also threatened to kill her and her other family members if she told anyone about the abuse, while showing her a knife.  

The man “vehemently” denied the claims and continues to deny any wrong-doing, the court heard. He told gardaí that the child's mother, from whom he is estranged, made up the claims to turn his children against him.  

The man subsequently appealed his conviction in May last, where defence counsel Garnet Orange SC argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to stop the trial at the conclusion of the prosecution case and failed to direct immediate disclosure of WhatsApp or Viber communications between members of the family – excluding the accused – when the existence of the same emerged in the course of the prosecution evidence.  

He also submitted that the judge erred in refusing to allow cross-examination regarding the results of a physical examination of the complainant and in refusing to give a corroboration warning. Such a warning can be given by a judge to a jury to highlight the dangers of convicting a defendant on the basis of uncorroborated evidence.  

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgement today, Mr Justice Edwards said he was not persuaded that the trial judge erred in refusing to withdraw the case from the jury. He said that all of the witnesses were available to the defence to be cross-examined, but it was entirely speculative as to whether material communications might have been contained in any record of WhatsApp messages exchanged between them.  

He went on to say that the court was completely satisfied that any delays in the injured party making a complaint to the gardaí were not of such import as to require that the case be withdrawn from the jury.  

Concerning the consistency of evidence by the witnesses, Mr Justice Edwards said it had been open to the defence to draw the jury’s attention to what witnesses had said.  

“Whether the complainant’s evidence was consistent or inconsistent with what she said to those to whom she had complained was uniquely a jury issue,” he said.  

Saying that there was nothing to suggest a basis for concern of possible collusion or fabrication by the complainant with any others, Mr Justice Edwards said the trial judge was right to allow the case to go to the jury.  

Concerning the alleged refusal to allow cross-examination regarding the results of a physical examination of the complainant, the judge said that this ground of appeal was misleading in that it suggested that no cross-examination whatsoever was permitted. He pointed out that the only restriction imposed was on seeking to cross-examine the victim’s mother about the physical examination, as this could have invited hearsay.  

“A defendant is entitled to cross-examine a witness, but it must be cross-examination within the rules of evidence,” said Mr Justice Edwards, going on to say that the trial judge imposed no inhibition on the defence from introducing evidence by lawful means as to what had been found, or not found, during the medical examination.   

Describing the trial judge’s ruling on this matter as “unassailable” and this ground of appeal as “entirely misconceived”, Mr Justice Edwards said he had no hesitation in rejecting it.  

Moving on to the trial judge’s failure to give a corroboration warning to the jury, Mr Justice Edwards said that whether or not a warning was given was a matter within the trial judge’s discretion.  

“There is no basis in the present case for believing that the discretion was impermissibly or improperly exercised,” he said, rejecting this ground of appeal.  

In summary, the appeal against conviction was dismissed by the court.