A man who was jailed for 12 years in 1998 after pleading guilty to a number of sex offences involving two of his daughters and a niece has lost a fresh attempt to overturn his conviction.
The man had sought to challenge his conviction on grounds that he entered pleas of guilty in circumstances where he had legal advice which was "incomplete and inaccurate". He also argued he had insufficient time to consider whether to plead guilty. At all times up to the date of his trial, he said, he had maintained to his legal advisers that he was not guilty.
The nine charges to which he had pleaded guilty were three of rape of a daughter, one of sexual assault and one of attempted rape of another daughter, and three of rape and one of buggery of a niece.
Giving the reserved judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice McCracken, presiding, sitting with Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Gilligan, said the court was satisfied the advice given was proper and that the decision to plead guilty was that of the applicant alone. In those circumstances, it held he had not made any case of unfairness or injustice.
The court had had the benefit of affidavits sworn by the man, his solicitor and by senior and junior counsel who represented him on the day he pleaded guilty, Mr Justice McCracken noted. His solicitor had also exhibited a number of detailed attendances both on the man and on his counsel.
The decision to plead guilty must be the decision of the accused himself. Counsel could only advise, but could not direct a plea. Nevertheless, it was clearly a function of counsel to point out the weaknesses in a case and to advise the accused of the possible consequences of unsuccessfully contesting the case.
Mr Justice McCracken said the court was somewhat disturbed by the lack of consultation prior to the trial and by the short period in which the applicant was able to consider his plea. It was also concerned by the failure of the original junior counsel to attend, apparently without notice to his solicitor, so that on the morning of the hearing, neither counsel who were to conduct the defence had ever met the applicant.