DPP v Stokes
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Sheehan |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IECA 402 |
| Docket Number | [2015 No. 229] |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 20 December 2016 |
[2016] IECA 402
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sheehan J.
Birmingham J.
Sheehan J.
Mahon J.
[2015 No. 229]
Conviction – Sexual offences – Error in law – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether trial judge erred in law
Facts: The appellant, Mr Stokes, on the 5th August, 2015, was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict of rape contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, the defilement of a child under fifteen years contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and two counts of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. He was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment with the final two years of that sentence suspended for a period of twelve years. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction. He relied on fourteen separate grounds: (a) The trial judge erred in law in failing to hold that the memoranda or statements taken from the appellant were inadmissible in evidence having regard to the behaviour and conduct of the gardaí in the course of the interviews; (b) The judge erred in law and in fact in ruling that the behaviour and conduct of the investigating gardaí in the course of the interviews of the accused whilst in custody was lawful and/or not in breach of the Treatment of Persons in Custody Regulations 1987; (c) The judge erred in law and in principle in admitting into evidence sections of the videotapes of interview as chosen by the prosecution; (d) The judge erred in law, having admitted memoranda or statements arising from interviews of the appellant by the gardaí and having regard to the selective contents of the interviews played to the jury failed to warn the jury adequately as to the inherent dangers of relying on such memoranda or statements in such circumstances or in circumstances where the full content was not played to the jury and could not be so played; (e) The trial was unsafe and unsatisfactory in that material of a highly prejudicial nature suggesting that the appellant had threatened the complainant subsequent to the offence went before the jury even though it was inadmissible and so ruled by the trial judge; (f) The judge erred in law and in the manner in which he directed the jury as to prosecution evidence by contrast to his directions to the jury with respect to the defence case; (g) The judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly or adequately direct the jury in relation to the credibility of the complainant CS and, in particular, the failure to address key matters relating to conflicts in the evidence which impacted on her credibility; (h) The judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly direct the jury as to how it should attach weight to answers given to questions asked in cross examination insofar as he told the jury that a failure to call evidence to prove the premise of the question meant that the jury were bound to accept the answer as accurate; (i) The judge in so directing the jury at (h) undermined the right to silence of the accused and suggested that the accused must prove certain matters in order for any answers to questions given in cross examination to be treated as anything other than factually true; (j) The judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly direct the jury in relation to the manner in which they should approach and consider the medical evidence in the case; (k) The judge misdirected the jury as to the nature of the medical evidence given in terms of the probative value of the same and failed to properly address the issue after requisition; (l) The judge erred in law in directing the jury as to the burden of proof and standard of proof in relation to the defence under s. 3(5) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and the evidence related thereto; (m) The judge failed to properly direct the jury as to the defence of honest belief with respect to the age of a complainant with particular reference to his failure to draw the attention of the jury to such evidence as may have supported the defence; (n) The judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to adequately direct the jury in relation to the issue of corroboration by not giving an adequate or sufficiently adequate direction to the jury; (o) The judge imposed a sentence which was disproportionate and excessive, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the appellant. The appellant submitted that if the Court rejected each ground of appeal it should then look at all the grounds cumulatively and in light of the effect of the cumulative complaints of the appellant allow the appeal against conviction.
Held by the Court that none of the grounds of appeal had been made out to such an extent that this would require the Court to look at the grounds of appeal in the manner that the appellant suggested.
The Court held that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
On the 5th August, 2015, following a seventeen day trial the appellant was convicted by a unanimous jury verdict of rape contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, the defilement of a child under fifteen years contrary to s. 2 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and two counts of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended. He was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment with the final two years of that sentence suspended for a period of twelve years.
The offences were alleged to have occurred on the 3rd June, 2011, at the Old Tuam Road, Monksland, Co. Roscommon.
The appellant now challenges his conviction and sentence. This judgment is concerned solely with the appeal against conviction, in respect of which he relies on fourteen separate grounds set out in the following way in his notice of appeal:-
‘(a) The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to hold that the memoranda or statements taken from the appellant were inadmissible in evidence having regard to the behaviour and conduct of the gardaí in the course of the interviews.
(b) The learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact in ruling that the behaviour and conduct of the investigating gardaí in the course of the interviews of the accused whilst in custody was lawful and/or not in breach of the Treatment of Persons in Custody Regulations, 1987.
(c) The learned trial Judge erred in law and in principle in admitting into evidence sections of the videotapes of interview as chosen by the prosecution.
(d) The learned trial judge erred in law, having admitted memoranda or statements arising from interviews of the appellant by the gardaí and having regard to the selective contents of the interviews played to the jury failed to warn the jury adequately as to the inherent dangers of relying on such memoranda or statements in such circumstances or in circumstances where the full content was not played to the jury and could not be so played.
(e) The trial was unsafe and unsatisfactory in that material of a highly prejudicial nature suggesting that the appellant had threatened the complainant subsequent to the offence went before the jury even though it was inadmissible and so ruled by the trial judge.
(f) The learned trial judge erred in law and in the manner in which he directed the jury as to prosecution evidence by contrast to his directions to the jury with respect to the defence case.
(g) The learned trial judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly or adequately direct the jury in relation to the credibility of the complainant CS and, in particular, the failure to address key matters relating to conflicts in the evidence which impacted on her credibility.
(h) The learned trial judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly direct the jury as to how it should attach weight to answers given to questions asked in cross examination insofar as he told the jury that a failure to call evidence to prove the premise of the question meant that the jury were bound to accept the answer as accurate.
(i) The learned trial judge in so directing the jury at (h) above undermined the right to silence of the accused and suggested that the accused must prove certain matters in order for any answers to questions given in cross examination to be treated as anything other than factually true.
(j) The learned trial judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to properly direct the jury in relation to the manner in which they should approach and consider the medical evidence in the case.
(k) The learned trial judge misdirected the jury as to the nature of the medical evidence given in terms of the probative value of the same and failed to properly address the issue after requisition.
(l) The learned trial judge erred in law in directing the jury as to the burden of proof and standard of proof in relation to the defence under s. 3(5) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 and the evidence related thereto.
(m) The learned trial judge failed to properly direct the jury as to the defence of honest belief with respect to the age of a complainant with particular reference to his failure to draw the attention of the jury to such evidence as may have supported the defence.
(n) The learned trial judge erred in law or in fact or in a mixed question of law and fact in failing to adequately direct the jury in relation to the issue of corroboration by not giving an adequate or sufficiently adequate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Stokes
...the sentence imposed, alleging that it was disproportionate and excessive. 14 The Court's judgment in the appeal against conviction ( [2016] I.E.C.A. 402) was delivered by Sheehan J., with whom Birmingham and Mahon JJ. concurred, on the 20th December, 2016. The Court went through each of th......