DPP v S A
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J. |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] IESCDET 129 |
| Date | 16 November 2020 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000049 Central Criminal Court record no: Bill No. CCDP0079/2014 |
AND
[2020] IESCDET 129
O'Donnell J.
Charleton J.
O'Malley J.
Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000049
Court of Appeal record no: 2018 No 214
Central Criminal Court record no: Bill No. CCDP0079/2014
AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal.
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
REASONS GIVEN
| COURT Court of Appeal |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 11 th March 2020 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 11 th March 2020 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 25 th March 2020 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL MADE ON 15 th April, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME |
This determination concerns a decision of the Court of Appeal of 11 March 2020, Birmingham P, Kennedy and Whelan JJ, affirming the conviction of the applicant on several counts of sexual violence; [2020] IECA 60.
Essentially, the facts related to a relationship formed in England with a mother of four children, two of whom were in 2011 aged 10 years and 11 years. The mother moved to Ireland with the applicant and lived in a substantial residence in a rural area. The mother became ill and had to be hospitalised on one occasion. As between 6 December 2010 and 10 March 2011, at two locations, the applicant, according to the jury verdict, raped and molested the children.
There was concern from social workers and also from school staff as to the applicant's interaction with the child victims. At a point in March 2011, the applicant moved across the border with the children and another woman who was the mother of two children. The applicant moved to South America and then attended a convention in the United States in 2014 where he was arrested and extradited. Trial dates were set in 2016 and 2017 but were abandoned because of extensive applications for discovery by the applicant. The jury convicted him in April 2018 after a 42-day trial. He did not choose to give evidence.
The children were very young. In consequence, their evidence was video recorded back from April to October 2011. That may have the advantage of preserving the evidence. The interviews were conducted by two specialist gardaí trained in appropriate interview techniques. Naturally, as abused children, they also had contact with and interviews with social workers and others and other interventions. That has to be expected.
There is nothing in the papers whereby it becomes possible to formulate what legal point of general public importance is sought to be appealed to this Court; the appeal to the Court of Appeal having failed.
Multiple complaints are made by the applicant about the process. These include that the children had notes, made by themselves, and drawings, the same, in front of them during the videoed interviews. There is supposed to have been contamination, whatever that means, by reason of interviews and interventions. The trial judge, basically, it is submitted should have ruled out the evidence and should have directed an acquittal. But, it is more than difficult to see where in all of this is there anything other than procedure, the admissibility of evidence and rulings of fact made by a trial judge as a judge of fact and law in the absence of the jury. What is sought here is a further appeal and not the constitutional formula of identifying a legal issue of general public importance.
16 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 provides:
Subject to subsection (2) …
a video recording of any statement made by a person under 14 years of age (being a person in respect of whom such an offence is alleged to have been committed) during an interview with a member of the Garda Síochána or any other person was competent for the purpose, shall be admissible at the trial of the offence as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible:
Provided that, in the case of a video recording mentioned in paragraph(b), either … the person who statement was video recorded is available at the trial for cross-examination.
(2)(a) Any such video recording or any part thereof shall not be admitted in evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial