Donegal man loses appeal against conviction for raping daughter

A Donegal man has lost an appeal against his conviction for raping and sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a child, with the court finding that evidence of the victim's disclosure of the abuse to her aunt was admissible at trial. 

At the Court of Appeal on Monday, Mr Justice Michael MacGrath said that the complaint made by the injured party to her aunt was consistent with the core aspects of the evidence she gave concerning the offending of her father, Michael Carter (57).    

Carter, of Kinnego, Ballymagan, Buncrana, was found guilty in June 2023, following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, of one count of rape and 25 sample counts of sexual assault between June 2010 and June 2014, when his daughter, Karen Harkin, was aged between nine and 12 years old.    

The appellant, who had denied the charges, has never expressed any remorse for his offending and does not accept the jury's verdict. 

Ms Harkin's parents were separated and the court heard the abuse occurred when she visited her father's rented home between 2010 and 2014. Ms Harkin waived her anonymity so her father can be named.    

The court heard that Carter would watch pornography while the injured party was present and he would touch her vagina. He would also put his hand down her underwear and touch her vagina.      

The court also heard that Carter would remove her trousers and underwear and rub himself on top of her. She would struggle to breathe during these incidents.    

Carter also touched the injured party inappropriately while she was in the bath and would occasionally get into the bath with her, where he would rub his penis against her and touch her inappropriately.    

On one occasion, Carter raped the injured party but stopped when she screamed. She then ran into the bathroom and noticed she was bleeding.    

Carter was sentenced by Ms Justice Karen O'Connor to ten and a half years in prison.   

Launching an appeal against this conviction in May of this year, Michael Bowman SC said that a complaint made by the injured party to her aunt was “elicited by question and answer” rather than being a voluntary complaint about the abuse being committed by her father. 

Mr Bowman said that the aunt gave evidence that the girl disclosed to her she had been sexually assaulted and interfered with by “her daddy”, who was named.

Mr Bowman said that the aunt told gardaí that she felt the girl was hiding something, so she asked if something had happened to her.

“I asked her was there anything wrong and she said no, and for some reason I asked her is there someone interfering with you, and she started crying,” said the aunt.    

Mr Bowman went on to say that the woman asked the injured party if it was the appellant who was interfering with her, who she named, and the girl said it was.  

Mr Bowman said that the defence was raising an issue over the voluntary nature of the interview. He said that the complaint was only admissible if it was voluntary, not induced, adding that the girl was tearful and upset at the time, before a series of questions began.     

In response, counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions, James B. Dwyer SC said that concerning the voluntariness aspect, the court had to consider the context of how the complaint emerged. He said that the injured party was in a distressed state, tearful and anxious, and there had been something on the television at the time that was relevant.     

"It isn’t dragged out of the complainant,” he said, telling the court that what the injured party said had to be seen in the context of what was on the television at the time.      

Addressing the issue of consistency in the evidence, Mr Dwyer said there was no identifiable inconsistency.     

The DPP contended that the trial court correctly concluded that while the details of the rape were not entirely consistent with the injured party’s evidence, there was a considerable amount of consistency in her statements which she made to her aunt.    

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgement today, Mr Justice MacGrath said that no error had been identified which ought to lead to the conviction being set aside.  

“We are satisfied that the complaint (to the aunt) was consistent with the core aspects of the evidence of the complainant regarding the appellant’s offending,” said Mr Justice MacGrath, adding that the complaint to the aunt was properly admissible.  

Ruling that no error had been demonstrated by the trial judge in the exercise of her discretion to admit the evidence, Mr Justice MacGrath said the court was rejecting the appeal.