Queen v RD
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NICA 60 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 19 November 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NICA 60
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE11659
ICOS No: 15/040432
Delivered: 19/11/2021
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE QUEEN
v
RD
___________
Mr Brendan Kelly QC with Mr Mark Barlow (instructed by Higgins, Holywood, Deazley)
for the Applicant
Mr Richard Weir QC with Mr Michael McAleer (instructed by the Public Prosecution
Service)
___________
Before: Keegan LCJ, Treacy LJ and Colton J
___________
KEEGAN LCJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction and Reporting Restrictions
[1] The applicant was convicted of five sexual offences after a trial at Dungannon
Crown Court which took place between 6 June 2017 and 21 June 2017 before His
Honour Judge Neill Rafferty QC, the learned trial judge. This is his application for
leave to extend time and appeal against conviction, leave having been refused by the
Single Judge, O’Hara J.
[2] The applicant is the father of two children who are the complainants in this
case. These two complainants are protected by section 1 of the Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act 1992. Therefore, no matter shall be published which might lead to
their identification. Given the familial connection the applicant must not be
identified either and so he is referred to by the initials given above. We shall refer to
the complainants as X, who is a male child now aged 15, and Y, a female child now
aged 12.
[3] The Bill of Indictment contained nine counts of sexual offences and two
counts of threats to kill committed against X and Y. Counts 1, 2, 6 and 7 were rape of
2
a child under 13 and these related to X, the applicant’s son. Counts 1, 6 and 7 were
specific counts and count 2 was by agreement a specimen count which covered a
course of conduct over a three year period. Count 8 was a charge of sexual assault of
a child by penetration in relation to child Y and count 9 was an alternative count of
sexual assault of a child, in this case under 13, namely the applicant’s daughter Y.
[4] The jury was directed by the judge to find the applicant not guilty of counts
3-5 as these were wrapped up in the specimen count 2. The jury also decided that
the applicant was not guilty on count 8 which is the count in relation to sexual
assault by penetration of Y. In addition, the applicant was found not guilty of counts
10 and 11, namely threats to kill in relation to each child.
[5] The applicant was convicted of four offences of rape in relation to X and one
offence of sexual assault in relation to Y as follows:
Count 1 - rape of a child under 13 years committed during the period between
21 February 2009 and 21 February 2010 when the child X was between 3 and
4 years old.
Count 2 - rape of a child under 13 years was committed between 21 February
2010 to 21 February 2014 when the child X was aged between 4 and 8, this
was the specimen count.
Count 3 - rape of a child under 13 years committed between 21 February 2014
to 5 April 2014 when the child X was 8.
Count 4 - rape of a child under 13 years committed between 1 March 2014 and
5 April 2014 again when the child X was aged 8.
Count 5 - rape of a child under 13 years committed between 21 February 2014
and 5 March 2014 when the child X was aged 8.
Count 9 - sexual assault between 21 February 2014 and 5 March 2014 and
intentional touching of a child under 13 years of age when child Y was 5 years
of age.
[6] On the 21 October 2017 the applicant was sentenced for these offences to a 14
year custodial sentence made up of 7 years’ imprisonment and 7 years on licence.
He was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register indefinitely and he was made the
subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order.
Grounds of Appeal
[7] The Notice of Appeal is dated 21 October 2019. This relates on the face of it,
only to the rape convictions in relation to child X. However, in an accompanying
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
The King v Liam Whoriskey
...point from which to consider the matter, as has been indicated by this court in other cases, the most recent of which is that of R v RD [2021] NICA 60 at [15] – [17]. [103] In respect of these grounds of appeal counsel’s attack centred on the alleged failure of the judge to explain the ingr......