Convicted Limerick rapist applies for return of iPhone he used to ‘lure’ his victim

A CONVICTED Limerick rapist applied to a judge for the return of an iPhone which he used to “lure” the victim to a so-called house party before raping her.

He also made death threats to the victim to drop the charge against him at a later date.

The police property application was held in camera, to protect the identity of the victim, at Newcastle West Court before Judge Carol Anne Coolican.

Inspector Liam Wallace, prosecuting, objected to the phone being returned.

The applicant, now aged in his 30s, pleaded guilty to one count of raping the then 19-year-old woman in 2015 at a place in County Limerick. He also admitted intimidation of a witness and attempting to pervert the court of justice on subsequent dates.

He was jailed for six years in 2019 and is due to be released later this year.

The man said he gave three phones to gardai as part of the investigation - his iPhone, his Samsung Galaxy and the victim’s Samsung Galaxy. Insp Wallace said there were just two phones seized - the man’s iPhone and the victim’s Samsung Galaxy.

Solicitor Kate Cussen, who represented the applicant, asked him what were on his phones?

“Pictures, text messages and calls. I used the iPhone for Facebook and the Samsung for ringing and texting my family,” said the applicant.

Insp Wallace produced a garda memo that said just one phone belonging to the man was seized which he had signed.

“I said my phones,” said the applicant.

Ms Cussen said it was hard to distinguish between phone and phones.

Judge Coolican said she was satisfied that it was singular.

The man denied using the iPhone to contact the victim. Answering questions from Insp Wallace, the man said he used a cousin’s tablet to contact her.

Insp Wallace said the applicant was convicted of rape, intimidation of a witness and attempting to pervert the court of justice which “goes to his credibility”.

Man appears in court accused of committing lewd act on Limerick-bound train

The inspector asked the man what he wants the iPhone back for?“It belongs to me,” he said.

Insp Wallace said there was “no lawful requirement” for the man to have the phone as he is in prison and can’t have one.

“If you were convicted for assault with a baseball bat you wouldn’t expect to get the baseball bat back,” said Insp Wallace.
Ms Cussen objected.

Garda Gaven Griffin, one of the officers who investigated the rape, took the stand. Inspector Wallace asked him what part did the iPhone play?

Garda Griffin said it was used to “lure the victim to a party but it was just (name of the rapist) waiting in a house”.
Insp Wallace asked why the rapist's and the victim's phones were retained by the State?

“For evidence. The victim’s phone was destroyed - he said he stood on it accidentally. The iPhone contains the victim’s and her family’s contact details,” said Garda Griffin.

Ms Cussen put it to the garda that her client says there were three phones - two belonging to him and the victim’s phone - seized.

“No. There were just two phones. I can guarantee you - this was a major investigation and a lot of work went into it - if there was another phone we would have investigated it,” said Garda Griffin.

In summing up her application seeking the return of her client’s phones, Ms Cussen said there was a conflict of evidence.

“He says he gave gardai two phones of his. He says he did not contact the victim on those phones. The perverting the course of justice charge occurred two months later when the gardai had those phones,” said Ms Cussen.

Insp Wallace said the second phone belonging to the rapist - the Samsung Galaxy - was “fictional”.

He said it is the State’s case that the iPhone was used in the commission of a serious crime and objected to the application being granted.

“It is essentially the weapon, the first blow to draw the victim to the house. There is certain data pertaining to the victim and the victim’s family on the phone. He is in custody - there is no lawful reason for him to have a phone,” said Insp Wallace.

Judge Coolican said she had listened carefully to all the witnesses and submissions before refusing the police property application.