A REPEAT SEX offender has appealed his conviction for raping a vulnerable 17-year-old girl at a house party on New Year’s Eve, arguing that a number of factors, including shorter lunch breaks, pressurised the jury and left them in “hurry up mode”.

The now 26-year-old man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was found guilty following a trial earlier this year of one count of rape and one count of sexual assault on 31 December, 2018. The Central Criminal Court heard that the man does not accept the verdict of the jury.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Padraig Dwyer SC, for the man, argued that the suggestion the jury might take a half hour lunch break instead of the usual hour could have put pressure on the panel during their deliberations.

Counsel said the jury had been given the option to return a majority verdict after deliberating for four hours and 20 minutes. He said at that point, defence counsel had made a submission to the court that the jury be informed of their right to disagree and this was refused by the judge.

He said the jury then returned with a question in relation to the evidence contained in a doctor’s report.

Counsel said the trial judge did not answer the question as it would have involved the interpretation of evidence but at that point the defence had requested that the jury be recharged on legal principles.

He said there was then a discussion between the trial judge and counsel regarding the time the judge would allow the jury to take lunch. Mr Dwyer said the defence argued that reducing the usual lunch time may pressure the jury during their deliberations.

 “They were asked are you okay with half an hour and only the foreman said yes. In my submission, juries should be given the full hour for lunch,” he said. “It’s all in the hurry up mode, it’s all in the lets get this sorted.”

He said the jury eventually returned a majority 10-2 verdict having deliberated for eight hours and 31 minutes, four hours after they were given the option of a majority verdict. Mr Dwyer said he had objected to the jury being given a majority verdict four hours in.

 “By telling them they can come to a majority verdict that in itself can put a little bit of pressure on a jury,” he said.

He said it was “exceptional” that in the appellant’s case, the jury had been put on their majority for almost the same amount of time that a unanimous decision had been allowed for. 

Mr Dwyer submitted that by refusing to inform the jury of their right to disagree and continuing a policy not to do so, the trial judge asserted pressure on jury members to come to a decision.

He said there was a possibility the jury may have been deadlocked and shouldn’t have been allowed to “drift on” for four more hours without being told they had a right to disagree.

“A jury that is perhaps ignorant of its right to be deadlocked, that’s the issue here,” he said.

Mr Justice John Edwards said there had been no intimation whatsoever from the jury that they felt “the thing was dragging on too long”.

Mr Dwyer advanced a further ground of appeal that the judge erred in failing to remind the jury of the legal principles regarding reasonable doubt and the benefit of the doubt following a question from the jury relating to evidence contained in a doctor’s report. He suggested the judge should have recharged the jury on the standard and burden of proof after this question was asked.

Mr Dwyer also argued that the trial judge erred by allowing the prosecution to re-examine a witness that had been tendered to the defence on issues that did not arise during cross examination by defence counsel.

Anne-Marie Lawlor, for the State, said the defence had invited the trial court to direct the jury on the possibility of a disagreement contemporaneously to the trial court’s direction on the possibility of returning a majority verdict. She said there is no known rule of law that would require this.

In relation to the re-examination of a witness, Ms Lawlor said her the reason for her line of questioning was so that the jury would simply have “the full picture” because what they had been left with after cross-examination by the defence was “inaccurate” and an incomplete recitation of the man’s engagement with the gardaí.

In relation to the final ground of appeal regarding the issue of the legal principles of reasonable doubt, Ms Lawlor said in her charge to the 12-person panel, the judge  had given an emphatic explanation of the standard of proof.

Mr Justice Edwards said the three-judge court would reserve judgement on the matter.

At a previous sentence hearing, the court was told the then 17-year-old victim was at a party and became intoxicated. She was helped to a bedroom and later returned downstairs.

The victim went back to the bedroom and then fell asleep. She was then allegedly sexually assaulted by a different man.

The complainant fell back asleep and later awoke to find the defendant raping her. During the trial, one witness gave evidence of seeing the man half-naked in the room with the complainant, while another said they saw the man leave the bedroom with his belt undone.

When interviewed by gardaí, the defendant did not accept culpability and suggested his belt was loose for dancing. The court was also told that he was aware of the earlier alleged incident.

The defendant has six previous convictions, including one District Court conviction for sexual assault dating from 2019, to which he pleaded guilty. He received a five-month prison sentence, which was later reduced on appeal to 120 hours of community service in lieu of a two-month prison sentence.

Imposing sentence, Ms Justice Karen O’Connor said the man was aware that the victim was “vulnerable on the night due to intoxication” and due to an earlier alleged incident. She said he had “taken advantage” of the girl in what “can only be described as a predatory manner”.

She handed the man a sentence of eight years and three months, with the final nine months suspended on strict conditions, including that he place himself under the supervision of the Probation Service for 12 months.

In her victim impact statement, the woman said she was in a “drunken and vulnerable state in that room” on the night in question, and the defendant had taken advantage of her.

She said she struggles to trust others and her instincts, which is a “lonely way of being”. She said her self-esteem has been affected as she was “reduced from a human being to a mere object of sexual gratification”.

In her statement, the victim wrote that survivors of sexual assault are often told the guilt is not theirs to carry, but that she still struggles with such feelings as “guilt does not wait to be justified to make its way to a person’s heart”.