DPP v Hanley
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham P. |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IECA 173 |
| Docket Number | [270/15] |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 11 June 2018 |
[2018] IECA 173
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Birmingham J.
Birmingham J.
Mahon J.
Edwards J.
[270/15]
Conviction – Rape – Corroboration warning – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the judge erred in refusing to warn the jury in respect of corroboration evidence
Facts: The appellant, Mr Hanley, on 14th October 2015, was convicted in the Central Criminal Court by a unanimous jury of three counts of rape. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, he had pleaded guilty to a single count of s. 3 assault, assault causing harm. Subsequently, he was sentenced to a term of 12 and a half years imprisonment in respect of the rape offences and to a term of 5 years imprisonment in respect of the s. 3 assault. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against the convictions on the grounds that: (i) the judge erred in refusing to warn the jury in respect of corroboration evidence; (ii) the verdict of the jury was perverse and should not be allowed to stand; (iii) the judge failed to adequately address and warn the jury of what was alleged to be serious credibility concerns raised in respect of the complainant; (iv) the judge erred in refusing to permit the defence to cross-examine the injured party in respect of a previous complaint of sexual assault.
Held by the Court that, in the circumstances of the case, the judge erred in not providing a corroboration warning. The Court was not convinced that this did not affect the outcome of the trial.
The Court held that it would quash the conviction.
Appeal allowed.
1. On 14th October 2015, the appellant was convicted in the Central Criminal Court by a unanimous jury of three counts of rape. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, he had pleaded guilty to a single count of s.3 assault, assault causing harm. Subsequently, he was sentenced to a term of 12 and a half years imprisonment in respect of the rape offences and to a term of 5 years imprisonment in respect of the s. 3 assault. He has appealed the convictions and appealed also the severity of the sentences. This judgment deals solely with the appeal against convictions.
2. The background to the trial was that the complainant and appellant had met at a party in April 2012. A relationship developed which became intimate. At one point, the appellant was staying in a house that the complainant shared with her brother at an address in Limerick. On 2nd May 2012, there was a falling out between the complainant and the appellant and between the complainant's brother and the appellant. The trial was concerned with events that occurred two days later, on 4th May 2012. The complainant's version of events is that at approximately 11pm, the appellant came to the house, at a time when she was alone there. According to this account, she opened the door, to be confronted by the appellant who was angry and abusive. She says that he assaulted her, knocking her back, kicking and punching her. The complainant says that she ended up on the floor in the living room and was physically assaulted again. While this was going on, the appellant was drinking from a bottle of vodka. The complainant says that matters then escalated with the appellant ripping off her clothes and raping her. The rape took place on a rug in the sitting room. The complainant alleges that the appellant did this on two occasions, dragging her upstairs after each rape and hosing her down in a shower. She says that the appellant did not ejaculate on these two occasions. The complainant says there was a third and final rape on the rug. Whether the appellant ejaculated on this occasion, or more precisely, what the complainant was saying as to whether he ejaculated or not is central to this appeal. The complainant was not brought upstairs after the third rape, rather, she says, that the appellant threatened her with a knife, proceeded to cut up the rug and then proceeded to burn it in the fireplace along with the clothing that he had ripped off her. The complainant says that the appellant said that he was doing this so as to ensure that no evidence would be found. The complainant says that the fire alarm was activated in the upstairs area of the house by smoke as a result of the objects being burnt and that she was able to escape from the building while the appellant went upstairs to deal with the alarm. The complainant escaped from the building wearing only a throw rug from the living room couch and a black towel. In this state, she approached members of the public. Gardaí were alerted and the complainant was brought to hospital for treatment. Statements of complaint were made by her to Gardaí on 5th and 8th May 2012. The appellant was arrested and detained. In the course of detention, he admitted the physical assault, but denied the acts of rape.
3. The appellant was charged with three counts of rape and one count of sexual assault. The trial came on, first, before Sheehan J. in April 2014, but the jury failed to agree a verdict, leading to a retrial before Murphy J. which resulted in the convictions which are now the subject of this appeal. That the convictions followed a retrial is a point of some significance in the context of the present appeal.
4. The grounds of appeal that have been raised are as follows:
(i) That the judge erred in refusing to warn the jury in respect of corroboration evidence;
(ii) that the verdict of the jury was perverse and should not be allowed to stand;
(iii) that the judge failed to adequately address and warn the jury of what is alleged to be serious credibility concerns raised in respect of the complainant;
(iv) that the judge erred in refusing to permit the defence to cross-examine the injured party in respect of a previous complaint of sexual assault.
5. The central issue in the appeal relates to the request at trial for a corroboration warning and the decision of the trial judge not to accede to the request. In substance, the appellant says that the circumstances of the case were such that there was only one way in which the discretion as to whether or not to give a warning could be exercised, it said that the circumstances of the case mandated the giving of a warning. The basis on which it is said that the circumstances mandated the giving of a warning related to what the complainant had said as to whether the appellant had ejaculated inside her or not. In the course of her statement to Gardaí on 5th May, she had said:
'[h]e didn't use a condom when he raped me. I do know he ejaculated inside me. He raped me three times and the last time he ejaculated inside me. He raped me three times and the last time he ejaculated. He had his penis inside my vagina when he ejaculated.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v M.G.
...warning. In the view of the Court, the circumstances in this case were very different indeed to those that prevailed in the case of the DPP v. Hanley [2018] IECA 173. There, this Court felt that points raised about the tailoring or modifying of evidence to accord with the forensic evidence......
-
DPP v S.A.
...and cross-contamination was raised on behalf of the appellant. 148 The appellant relies upon the decision of The People (DPP) v. Hanley [2018] IECA 173 as authority for the proposition that a corroboration warning is desirable where there are inconsistencies in testimony. However, the facts......
-
DPP v T.G.
...refusing to give a warning was that of jury confusion and such was deemed to be an insufficient reasoning in The People (DPP) v. Hanley [2018] IECA 173. Submissions of the respondent 37 The respondent submits that the trial judge exercised her discretion in not giving a corroboration warnin......
-
DPP v C.B.
...circumstances in this case did not mandate a warning be given. The facts were very different from those in The People (DPP) v. Hanley [2018] IECA 173 where this Court was of the view that a warning was positively required on its own particular facts. There are no concerns of that type in th......