DPP v Wooldridge

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hedigan
• Judgment Date: 12 April 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IECA 135
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 96/2017
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Date: 12 April 2018

[2018] IECA 135

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Hedigan J.

Birmingham J.

Mahon J.

Hedigan J.

Appeal No. 96/2017

BETWEEN

THE PEOPLE (AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS)

RESPONDENT

-AND-

HENRY WOOLDRIDGE

APPELLANT

Conviction – Sexual offences – Corroboration warning – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a warning in relation to corroboration

Facts: The appellant, Mr Wooldridge, following a nine day trial before a jury, was convicted on 14 counts: (i) Count 1 – rape of A.F. between the 1st July 2010 and the 31st August 2010; (ii) Count 2 – not guilty of s. 4 rape but guilty of the sexual assault of A.F. between the 1st July 2010 and the 31st August 2010; (iii) Counts 3 to 6 – sexual assault of A.F. between the 1st May 2010 and the 31st August 2010; (iv) Counts 8 to 13 – sexual assaults of N.F. between the 1st January 2009 and the 31st August 2010; (v) Counts 16 and 18 – sexual assaults of B.F. between the 1st November 2009 and the 25th August 2010. The appellant was found not guilty by a direction of the court in respect of Counts 7 (sexual assault of A.F.) and 17 (sexual assault of B.F.). The jury disagreed in respect of Counts 14 and 15 (rapes in respect of B.F.) and a nolle prosequi was entered in relation to these two counts. All three of the victims were sisters and were minors at the time of the offences. A sentence of ten years was imposed on the appellant in respect of the rape offence, with concurrent sentences on Count 2 of seven years, on each of Counts 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 18 of six years and 18 months on each of Counts 3, 4 and 8. All sentences were to be served concurrently and were to date from the 10th February 2017. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on the grounds that: (i) the trial judge erred in failing to give the jury a warning in relation to corroboration; (ii) the judge erred in failing to grant directions on a number of the counts on the indictment; and (iii) the verdicts returned by the jury were perverse, inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence.

Held by the Court that the trial judge delivered an impeccable charge to the jury. The Court noted that on the issue of corroboration he outlined to the jury in the clearest possible terms that the reason why a corroboration warning was given in respect of B.F. was because of the delay involved in making the two allegations of rape; no such delay was present in the case of any of the other charges brought against the appellant by either B.F. or her sisters. The Court held that this was a completely logical approach to take and was clearly explained. The Court noted that the judge had already indicated to the jury the importance of the care it was necessary to take and the level of proof required in order to come to a conviction. The Court held that the proposition contended for by the appellant in relation to the giving of the warning in the case of B.F. but refusing it in the case of A.F. could not, as a general proposition, be regarded as correct; it may well be that in the most exceptional of circumstances a warning in respect of one might require a warning in respect of the other. The Court held that this ground of appeal failed. The Court noted that, as pointed out at para. 22 of the appellant's submissions, grounds of appeal (ii) and (iii) were subsumed under ground (i) and that was the manner in which the appeal was conducted by senior counsel for the appellant at the hearing of the appeal.

The Court held that it would reject the appellant's appeal against his conviction.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 12th day of April 2018 by Mr. Justice Hedigan

1 The appellant appeals against his conviction on 10th February, 2017 following a nine day trial before Coffey J. and a jury. The appellant was convicted on 14 counts;

(i) Count 1 – Rape of A.F. between the 1st July 2010 and the 31st August 2010,

(ii) Count 2 – Not guilty of s. 4 rape but guilty of the sexual assault of A.F. between the 1st July 2010 and the 31st August 2010,

(iii) Counts 3 – 6 – Sexual assault of A.F. between the 1st May 2010 and the 31st August 2010,

(iv) Counts 8 – 13 – Sexual assaults of N.F. between the 1st January 2009 and the 31st August 2010,

(v) Counts 16 and 18 – Sexual assaults of B.F. between the 1st November 2009 and the 25th August 2010.

2 The appellant was found not guilty by a direction of the Court in respect of Counts 7 (sexual assault of A.F.) and 17 (sexual assault of B.F.). The jury disagreed in respect of counts 14 and 15 (rapes in respect of B.F.) and a nolle prosequi was entered in relation to these two counts. The most serious of these offences of which the appellant was convicted was a vaginal rape. All three of the victims were sisters and were minors at the time of the offences. The charges covered a period of time between the 1st January 2009 and the 24th August 2011.

3 A sentence of ten years was imposed on the appellant in respect of the rape offence, with concurrent sentences on count 2 of seven years, on each of counts 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 18 of six years and 18 months on each of counts 3, 4 and 8. All sentences were to be served concurrently and were to date from the 10th February 2017.

4 During the periods encompassed within the allegations, the appellant was in a relationship with S.F. who was the mother of the three victims. Her husband B.F. who was the father of the three complainants had passed away in September, 2005. The appellant moved into the family home in November, 2008.

5 During the time of these offences, the three complainants were aged between 11, 12 and 16. They were adults at the time of the trial herein. The sole conviction for rape of A.F. was committed at a time when she was just short of her 15th birthday.

6 There was a certain level of similarity in the nature of most of the offences. This involved the appellant inappropriately applying medicated cream for the treatment of skin problems in or around the breast or vaginal region and progressed to more sexually intrusive assaults. All bar one of the offences involved incidents within the complainant's home.

7 The allegations were first raised on or about the 5th August 2010. In an argument between two of the sisters a reference was made to the appellant having 'done things' to A.F. This resulted in a family gathering later that evening at which the allegations were put to the appellant in the company of his father. He vehemently denied these allegations and left the house with S.F. saying that they were going to go to the local garda station. S.F. took sheets from A.F.'s bed and some of her clothing. No complaint was actually made to the Gardaí.

8 On the following day S.F. brought A.F. to the family GP expressing a concern that A.F. had been engaged in sexual intercourse. She told the doctor that this was apparently with a younger man whom she described as A.F.'s boyfriend. The evidence was that during this consultation A.F. did not speak. Following this incident, some days later S.F. and A.F. met the appellant and he was asked to leave the family home. He did this for a few days. No further action occurred until October, 2010 when A.F. made a complaint to a friend in school which resulted in the HSE and eventually the Gardaí becoming involved. Statements were taken from A.F. and B.F. in November, 2010 and from N.F. in February, 2011.

The grounds of appeal

9 ...