Limerick man appeals conviction over prolonged abuse of his daughters

A RAPIST father who encouraged the family dog to take part in the sexual abuse of his daughters has brought an appeal against his conviction.

In July 2018 Patrick Byrnes,  80, with a last address at Castletroy, Limerick, was convicted of 58 charges of indecent assault and two counts of rape on dates between 1975 and 1985.

Byrnes began abusing his daughters when they were aged around seven, the year of their First Communion. The court heard they lived in "abject fear" of him and have been left broken by the decade of abuse.

Three of the indecent assault charges involved Byrnes “willing” the family dog to engage in sexual acts with one daughter. The court heard that he told the two children that he and their mother would split up if they told anyone about the abuse.

The women were aged seven when the sexual abuse began and it continued on a twice-weekly basis for ten years.

The father-of-nine, a retired taxi driver, had pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and continues to deny them.

He was sentenced to eight years with two years suspended by Mr Justice Paul McDermott on October 25, 2018.

In a remote hearing at the Court of Appeal this Monday, Roisin Lacey SC, said the appeal was being brought on the basis on which the trial judge dealt with alleged fabrication and collusion by the two complainants in his instructions to the jury.

She also submitted that the verdict of the jury was perverse and against the weight of evidence and should be set aside.

Counsel said it was “manifestly clear” that the alleged fabrication of the offences and collusion and collaboration on behalf of the two complainants was a "central plank" of the defence case.

She said the cross-examination of the women during the trial was approached with this in mind and that even before the case came to court, it was clear from Byrnes’ garda interviews that he was alleging a conspiracy and collusion on the part of his two daughters.

Ms Lacey said this critical part of the defence case was not addressed in the charge to the jury by the trial judge, whom she submitted dealt with the matter simply by a commentary on the defence case as opposed as a standalone warning.

She argued this reference was “left hanging in the air” without any real or proper direction to the jury on how they should deal with it.

Ms Lacey said no specific direction was given to the jury on whether they could use the evidence of one complainant as corroborative of the other. She said it was quite clear there was an error of law committed in the manner in which the jury were not directed in relation to this use of the evidence.

Counsel said that when the case commenced, there also did not appear to be any allusion or elaboration by the prosecution as to the manner in which they were trying the cases together.

She said there was no indication as to the manner in which the State was relying on the women's evidence, and whether or not there was to be cross-corroboration of the evidence.

Ms Lacey agreed with Ms Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh that the issue of cross-corroboration was neither raised by the defence, the prosecution nor the judge during the trial.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Gerard Clarke SC, told the court that there was no application to hold separate trials for each complainant and there were no requisitions made by the defence during the trial judge’s charge to the jury.

He said it was his understanding the case was not opened to the jury on the basis of system evidence. Mr Clarke said there were two complainants and while there was some similarity in their accounts of the abuse, there were also differences.

In reply, Ms Lacey said that in a case where there were multiple complainants, there was an added requirement on the trial judge to advise the jury as to how they must approach the evidence in the case.

She said it was also incumbent on the prosecution to “set out their stall” as to the basis on which they were advancing the evidence and if there was system evidence being advanced.  

The President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice George Birmingham, said the court would reserve its judgement.

The sentencing court heard that the women were aged seven when the sexual abuse began and it continued on a twice-weekly basis for a period of ten years.

The majority of the sexual abuse took place in the family home when the complainants were having baths, and in a coal shed adjacent to the property. Byrnes also sexually assaulted the girls in his car during shopping trips.

HE raped the younger of the two women twice in the sitting room of his home while other family members slept.

In a victim impact statement, one of the women said she loved animals as a child, and was thrilled when a neighbour gave her a dog as a present. However, she could not bear to be near the animal after Byrnes encouraged the dog to participate in the abuse on three occasions.

“Consensual sex felt wrong to me after what my father did to me and resulted in my broken marriage,” she said.

The sentencing heard that both complainants had waived their right to anonymity in order that their father, who they said they will never forgive, could be named.