Cavan man appeals conviction for raping niece

A Cavan man has today begun his appeal against his conviction for raping and sexually assaulting his teenage niece.

In April 2011, the 61-year-old man was jailed for nine years by Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy after he was found guilty by a Central Criminal Court jury of the rape and sexual assault of his niece on the fourth day of this trial.

He had pleaded not guilty to 14 counts of sexual assault and one count of rape on dates between May 25, 2002 and April 30, 2004.

Counsel for the applicant, Ms Mary Rose Gearty SC, today told the court that the appeal came down to a single issue as to whether an answer given by the applicant in interview with gardaí was capable of corroborating the offences should the jury have considered it a lie.

Ms Gearty submitted that the jury was essentially never given the option of considering whether the accused man was lying in interview or whether he had simply made a mistake given the time-lapse between the offence and the interview.

She said the trial judge should first have told the jury that there was a “factual inaccuracy” in an interview with the defendant which took place three years after the offence, before going on to tell them that there can be many reasons why a person might tell a lie.

Ms Gearty said Mr Justice McCarthy instead “went off the rails” in his charge and effectively invited the jury to assume the answer given by the man was a lie, taking the decision away from them and leaving the jury incapable of meaningfully discussing whether or not a lie was told.

She submitted that the matter was not raised in requisition as she believed it was “absolutely clear” the judge would tell the jury the answer might have been a mistake and would place it in the context of the time-lapse.

Counsel for the State, Ms Deirdre Murphy SC, said that the applicant was running a “perfection case” and was attempting to “pick one small string from the overall jumper and trying to unravel the whole case”.

She said that Ms Gearty should have argued for no corroboration warning to go to the jury if the applicant had made a mistake rather than told a lie in interview.

Ms Murphy said there was a clear and cogent prosecution case and it would be “unjust” to overturn the strength of that on the basis of a “very close parsing and analysing” of the judge’s charge.

Presiding judge Mr Justice John McMenamin said the appeal court would reserve its judgement but would deliver it as soon as possible.