Jury at Central Criminal Court in Cork unable to reach verdict in retrial of man who denies raping young woman

A man in his mid-50s who denies raping a young woman who was working for him more than 16 years ago has been put on trial twice for the same offence and the jury in each trial was unable to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

The trial in January ended with a disagreement. A retrial took place this week and on Friday the jury told Ms Justice Siobhán Lankford that they could not reach a verdict on which at least ten of them agreed.

They recorded their disagreement shortly before 5 p.m. on Friday and the judge thanked them for the attention they had given the matter at the Central Criminal Court in Cork. Now that the man has been put on trial twice without any verdict being reached it will be a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide on what attitude is to be taken to the charge.

ARREST

Sergeant Hilary Lynch originally arrested the accused man for the purpose of charging him with the single count of rape on January 25 2009.

The complainant who was 24 at the time and is now 39, testified that she and the accused drank together and had a joint on that night after work. 

She said that they were sitting in the kitchen of his home and he said he was feeling dizzy and that he was going to go to bed and lie down.

Asked by prosecution senior counsel Ray Boland if she had been in the defendant’s home other than on this night she said she was there a few times but could not remember if that was before or after the disputed events of January 25 2009.

The witness said she lay down on the bed herself and fell asleep and remembered wearing a nice dress her mother had bought for her for her birthday.

“The next thing I remember is waking up. He was on top of me. He was – I don’t know what way to say it – he was raping me.

“I remember waking up half in a dream thinking it was my boyfriend… One leg of my tights had been taken off, and my underwear. I kind of said (boyfriend’s name) and he (defendant) said, ‘don’t call me that’ – kind of laughing.

“I realised who it was and what was happening. I said, ‘stop, get away from me’. He did stop and he left the room.

“I kind of froze. I rolled myself up in the blanket like a sausage-roll and fell back to sleep. I woke up next morning, saw my tights, one leg off, and realised what happened.

“I went to South Doc. They gave me the morning-after pill.” 

DEFENDANT WAS COMPLAINANT'S BOSS

She told a friend and told her mother what happened but decided that she would not make a complaint to the gardaí. One of the factors in her mind at the time was that the defendant was her boss and she was still working in that place.

The defendant did not give evidence but his senior counsel Donal O’Sullivan reminded the jury of the interview he gave with gardaí where he said that he and the complainant were in the bed and that during the night he was lying behind her and put his hand on to her vagina outside her clothing, believing that it was his wife who was in bed with him.

Mr O’Sullivan said that the defendant found himself on trial for rape 16 years after the disputed incident and that he was seriously disadvantaged by the delay in bringing the complaint.

He said that if the young woman had gone to the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit to be examined there would have been the possibility of DNA evidence. He said this would have been particularly important in the context of the defendant’s assertion that there was no sexual intercourse.

“She said it happened. He said it didn’t,” Mr O’Sullivan said. Regarding surrounding details from earlier that day and earlier that night, “I don’t want to say she cannot remember anything but she cannot remember a whole lot,” he said.

He compared the prosecution to a financial person urging you to invest in a scheme to get a large return on your investment but not answering any of the surrounding questions on how one could hope to get the high percentage return. He suggested that one would not invest on such terms. He added that it was not a matter of saying that probably the complainant was right but that the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.