A former hotelier who was jailed for raping a 17-year-old employee after a staff party broke down as he told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that his defence was not put to the trial jury.
Brian Shaughnessy (55), formerly of Ballywinna, Craughwell, Co Galway, was convicted of raping the female part-time employee in the early hours of July 26th, 2010, in the presidential suite of the Loughrea Hotel and Spa, which he owned at the time.
He had denied the rape charge but was convicted by a jury in March 2013 and was sentenced to six years with one year suspended by Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan on June 10th, 2013, at the Central Criminal Court.
Shaughnessy then lodged an appeal, which was rejected in April 2020. Shaughnessy had claimed that his legal team did not adequately represent him at trial and that a timeline, which may contain a missing hour and 15 minutes that might have tested the credibility of the young woman’s account of sexual violence, was inadequately put to her in cross-examination.
Fintan O’Toole: ‘My grandad is dead. I am going to tennis today’: Christmas letters to my son, 1997
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Owen Doyle: Mack Hansen’s ill-advised comments simply cannot be allowed pass without sanction
Eoghan Daltun: Overgrazing eats up the last of Ireland’s ancient rainforest
Shaughnessy had claimed these issues were mentioned as an afterthought in a defence speech to the jury, and generally glossed over.
His former legal team deny any claims of incompetence.
It had been argued at the first appeal that this was “new evidence” in that the claim was not on the transcript and it related to the manner in which his legal instructions were addressed by the previous legal team.
However, Shaughnessy then successfully applied to the Supreme Court on the matter and the case was sent back to the Court of Appeal in March of last year.
In the Supreme Court’s decision sending the case back to the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Peter Charlton said it was “manifestly not possible” to decide whether or not defence counsel was actually incompetent without hearing more evidence about the instructions actually given or the accused’s version of events.
On Tuesday at the Court of Appeal, a sometimes tearful Shaughnessy said he handed four “critical” documents to his defence team on the Friday before his trial, which began the following Monday.
Shaughnessy claims the documents contained the time a key card was issued from the front desk in the hotel at 3.23am before he and the 17 year old went “straight up” to the room with wine and two glasses.
He further claimed there were 22 phone records also submitted to his legal team that showed a final call from the hotel for a taxi for the young woman who left at 5.41am – over two hours after the key was issued. He claims he also supplied his own phone records and the phone records of the complainant, who was sending texts from the room immediately before she left.
In his opening statement, Hugh Hartnett SC, for Shaughnessy, said the issue of how long the young woman was in the room was “critical” to the appeal. He said the woman told the trial she was in the room for 30 minutes but this was not consistent if she was “nearly immediately assaulted yet stayed there for over two hours”.
Mr Hartnett said the “two-hour” defence that Shaughnessy claims he “constantly” pressed on his legal team was not adequately represented in trial. This was the “stark, factual issue which the court must decide”, counsel said.
Shaughnessy told Paul Greene SC, for the State, that this two-hour period was “fundamental” to his defence and that he constantly reminded his legal team of this. Shaughnessy admitted to Mr Greene he had initially told gardaí that he was in the room for 45 minutes and that while he had made other errors, he said his story “never changed”.
The appellant said he raised the issue of the two hours “categorically, and in every meeting with my legal team” but claims he was told to leave the matter in the hands of the team. A tearful Shaughnessy said he had no “reason” to remember the night when he spoke to gardaí, adding that five months had elapsed before he spoke to them.
Shaughnessy said that timeline evidence regarding the key card and phone evidence was never put in questions to the complainant nor put before the jury. Shaughnessy told Mr Greene: “I couldn’t be more clear: my defence was not put to the jury. The Supreme Court took us in and that’s why we’re here today. My story has never changed.”
Mr Greene asked Shaughnessy if he was aware of what the gardaí wanted to talk to him about before he spoke to them. Shaughnessy said he was because the victim’s father rang him and asked what Shaughnessy did to his daughter. Shaughnessy said he did nothing and said he was told “wrong answer” by the complainant’s father, who then hung up.
Shaughnessy said that because of his time in jail he missed his father’s funeral, is now separated from his wife “and I was taken away from my kids for a crime I didn’t commit”. A tearful Shaughnessy said: “I have done time in prison, a lot of time – I took them [his legal team] to be professional people.”
Solicitor Gearoid Geraghty represented Shaughnessy at his trial. Mr Geraghty, who is 31 years practising criminal law, told Mr Hartnett that the two-hour defence was not a viable strategy during the trial and was something raised by Shaughnessy afterwards.
Mr Geraghty told Mr Hartnett that because Shaughnessy told gardaí he was in the room for 45 minutes, the two-hour strategy would put his first statement in doubt.
Mr Geraghty said that had been raised in initial consultation but was not pressed by Shaughnessy.
Mr Geraghty said he met Shaughnessy post-sentence and that his then client told him he had 17 grounds of appeal. However, said Mr Geraghty, the meeting became “a bit fractious because I was anxious that he had grounds for appeal but wouldn’t say what they were. He did not raise the two-hour defence.”
Mr Geraghty said he believed it “would be a nonsense” to raise a conflict between the two hours and the 45 minutes at trial.
Mr Geraghty said that “on one construction, it could make our client a liar”. During the trial the applicant was more than complimentary to his legal team, Mr Geraghty said.
Mr Justice George Birmingham, presiding, adjourned the appeal to October 7th, 2022, to allow time for the preparation of transcripts and submissions from both sides.