Cork rapist loses appeal to have 10-year sentence declared ‘perverse’

A man jailed for raping a woman in Cork four years ago has failed to have his conviction declared perverse.

George Arundel (27), of Shannonlawn, Mayfield, Cork City, pleaded not guilty to attempted rape, sexual assault, rape, and false imprisonment at Tinker's Field, Tinker's Cross, Cork City on May 23rd 2011.

He was found guilty by a jury on all counts at a Cork sitting of the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by Mr Justice Paul Carney on June 8th 2012.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Arundel’s application to set aside his conviction on grounds that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of evidence. He also lost an appeal against sentence.

Giving background to the case, Mr Justice John Edwards said the injured party's account of what happened was that at 9pm on the night in question, she had gone to an off-license to purchase cigarettes and alcohol.

After emerging from the premises, she was approached from behind by a man who said: “You’re keeping me company tonight”. She was grabbed and dragged to a nearby field where she was forced to sit on the ground. She made repeated attempts to escape but was overpowered each time.

Arundel attempted to rape the woman but her legs were crossed, the judge said. He then forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Ordeal

The ordeal lasted approximately one hour and 20 minutes, the judge said, before the woman overpowered Arundel and made her way to a nearby public house “in a state of some dishevelment, distress and covered in mud”.

At a subsequent medical examination at the sexual assault unit of the South Infirmary, the woman was found to have a significant number of bruises. She was found to have semen on her vulva and abdomen which matched the DNA profile taken from Arundel’s blood, the judge said.

Counsel for Arundel, Blaise O’Carroll SC, submitted that there were inconsistencies in the woman’s evidence and the jury’s verdict was against the weight of evidence and “perverse”.

Arundel’s complaints included confusion over the specific location of the offence, confusion over whether the woman returned to the scene of the crime, and that there were contradictory accounts of her attempted escape.

Another complaint concerned the woman’s inability to make any credible explanation of how Arundel was able to grab the woman and drag her while holding two one-litre bottles of cider.

However, Mr Justice Edwards said evidence showed that the bottles came in packaging bound together with tape and a handle. The woman had responded under cross-examination that her last memory of the cider was when Arundel was pricing it in the off-license.

A similar complaint was made regarding eight cans of larger the woman herself was carrying and how they travelled safely with her to the field. However, the evidence was that the eight cans came in two separate packs secured with plastic ties and the woman said she dropped them in the first of her three escape attempts, the judge said.

Substantial consistency

The Court of Appeal agreed “entirely” that if there were any inconsistencies it was a matter for the jury, the judge said.

He said there was substantial consistency in the woman’s testimony. Residual inconsistencies, in a 12 day trial where a victim was cross-examined for two to three days, were only to be expected, the judge said.

He added that the jurisdiction undoubtedly exists for the Court of Appeal to set aside a verdict but the bar is set very high. It was clearly intended to be an exceptional measure and no such exceptions arose in this case, he said.

Mr Justice Edwards, who sat with President of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice Seán Ryan and Mr Justice George Birmingham, consequently dismissed the appeal.

Arundel had also appealed his sentence on grounds that the judge failed to take account of his mitigating circumstances: his age, drug addiction and the “multiplicity of problems that he had”.

Mr O’Carroll said Arundel came from a particularly difficult background. None of his previous convictions had elements of violence and the offence for which he was convicted was “completely out of character”.

The judge said the court was not satisfied that there had been an error in principle in the sentencing process and the sentencing judge was “entitled to take the view that this case mandated” an “immediate and substantial custodial sentence”.

The Court of Appeal did not interfere in Arundel’s sentence for which he was returned to prison to continue serving.