Man who raped boss' daughter loses court appeal

A 36-year-old man has failed in an appeal against his conviction for raping his boss' teenage daughter.

The Court of Criminal Appeal today declined leave to appeal for the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, after finding there was “no legitimate basis” for his barrister’s criticism of the trial judge’s charge to the jury.

In July 2010, the man was jailed for seven years by Mr Justice Barry White after he was found guilty by a Central Criminal Court jury of raping the then 13-year-old girl in a storage facility at the back of her father’s business.

The man had pleaded not guilty to the offence on a date between August 16 and October 1, 2008.

Counsel for the accused man, Mr Martin Giblin SC, said the trial judge had issued a “deficient” and “in one respect quite dangerous” charge to the jury on the issue of corroboration.

A corroboration warning is a warning that can be issued by a judge at the end of a trial to a jury on the dangers of convicting an accused person on the evidence of a complainant without any additional independent evidence.

He said the trial judge informed the jury that they would have to decide if the complainant was making up the complaint to get back at the man in some way or was “fantasising” about the incident, which Mr Giblin said did not form part of the defence case.

Mr Giblin said the defence case did not involve an attack on the character of the complainant and was run on the basis that the accused man was not the perpetrator of the crime.

Counsel for the State, Mr Bernard Condon SC, submitted that when the charge was looked at in its totality, the trial judge had addressed all appropriate issues.

Presiding judge Mr Justice Frank Clarke said the appeal court was “strongly of the view” that Mr Justice White had delivered an “impeccable charge”.

He said the test the court had to apply was whether, when the charge was looked at on the whole, the trial judge put the issue fairly to the jury, put all evidence before them and adequately directed the jury to where the burden of proof lay.

Mr Justice Clarke said the trial judge clearly and directly brought the jury’s attention to the potential risks in convicting on uncorroborated evidence, and in particular on the uncorroborated evidence of a young person.

He said the fact that Mr Justice White drew attention to some possible reason a young person might give false evidence did not represent a difficulty in the charge.

Mr Justice Clarke said there was no legitimate basis for making a criticism of the trial judge’s charge to the jury and on that basis the court would decline the applicant leave to appeal.