Court rejects 'extraordinary' appeal by sex offender who raped teen weeks after arriving in Ireland

Ryan Dunne

The Court of Appeal has rejected the “extraordinary” claim put forward by a Guyanese sex offender, who had only been in Ireland for two weeks before he imprisoned and raped an 18-year-old, that his trial was unfair because he was forced to withdraw his false claims of being of previous good character.

In dismissing the appeal by Randi Gladstone (42), Judge Brian O’Moore on Thursday pointed out that the appellant’s own legal team had agreed to withdraw Gladstone’s evidence that his mother had described him as being “too friendly and kind”.

Judge O’Moore said that this was done as “a tactical move” to prevent Gladstone’s previous convictions for rape, kidnapping and false imprisonment being revealed to the jury.

Gladstone, who is originally from Guyana, was convicted in January last year of rape, sexual assault and false imprisonment in a holiday complex in Co Dublin, on August 25th, 2023. He was previously deported and barred from entering the UK.

He had pleaded not guilty, but the jury rejected his claim that the activity was consensual, and Judge Patrick McGrath sentenced him to ten years in prison.

The court heard that Gladstone lured the young woman into his room, where he raped and falsely imprisoned her. The jury were told that the young woman did not fight back due to fear. When Gladstone was finished, he told her “to come back later for more”.

Last June, he was jailed for a further six months for failing to notify gardaí he was a sex offender within seven days of arriving in Ireland, as is required by law.

The court heard that Gladstone flew from Suriname to Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands and arrived into Ireland on August 11th, 2023. Two weeks later, he raped the 18-year-old woman in shared accommodation.

In launching an appeal against his conviction earlier this year, barristers for Gladstone argued that making a section 22 statement withdrawing the appellant’s earlier evidence of good character made the jury at his trial conclude that he was in fact of bad character.

This occurred when Gladstone was giving evidence to explain WhatsApp messages, with the appellant saying that his mother had criticised him “for being too friendly and kind”.

Barristers for the State, however, said that Gladstone “dropped his protection or shield” by portraying himself of good character, when in fact he had spent a substantial amount of time in custody for very serious offences.

Dominic McGinn, on behalf of Gladstone, also submitted that when the trial judge clarified the concept of false imprisonment in response to a question from the jury, he correctly recited the legal provision before giving a very brief summary of the prosecution case.

However, counsel submitted the judge did so without reminding the jury of the defence’s claim that Gladstone's hotel room door could not be locked from the inside.

McGinn went on to say that the judge should have reminded the jury of Gladstone’s assertion that the victim had given him her phone number before she entered the room. He said there was also evidence that her phone was used during the time when she said she was falsely imprisoned and being sexually assaulted.

On behalf of the State, Patrick Gageby said that Gladstone is a person who has spent a substantial amount of time in custody for very serious offences.

In relation to the question from the jury about false imprisonment, Gageby said that it was answered by the judge, who had delivered his charge to the jury, laying out all matters of the case about an hour before the question was asked.

Concerning the defence’s argument that the judge should have reminded the jury of Gladstone’s assertion that the victim had given him her phone number before she entered the room, the State submitted that a judge does not have to go into every detail of the case in their charge to a jury.

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment today, Judge O’Moore noted that no complaint was made about the legal definition of false imprisonment given to the jury, but instead a lack of balance was argued by Gladstone’s legal team.

However, Judge O’Moore said the trial judge simply explained the precise allegation against Gladstone and also emphasised the need for the prosecution case to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

“None of this required the trial judge to repeat what he had already said to the jury in his charge about the evidence supporting the defence,” said Judge O’Moore.

He went on to note that, during the trial, Gladstone’s legal team had said that the defence evidence was “very basic and simple and the jury know it”.

Noting this correctly recorded the fact that the jury were fully aware of the “basic” account put forward by the appellant, Judge O’Moore ruled that there was no unfairness or lack of balance caused by the trial judge’s answer to the jury’s question.

Concerning the ground of appeal relating to the complainant giving Gladstone her telephone number and the timing of certain WhatsApp messages sent during the assault, Judge O’Moore said that the phone evidence was very straightforward and did not require “an elaborate exposition to the jury” by the trial judge.

“The third ground of appeal is an extraordinary one,” said Judge O’Moore, adding that the appellant’s own counsel had agreed to the section 22 admission, which withdrew any evidence of good character.

He said that this was done as “a tactical move” to avoid a ruling that the appellant’s previous convictions could be heard by the jury.

Judge O’Moore said the court noted the State's position that there was no actual decision to appeal against, as the good character evidence was withdrawn before the trial judge made any ruling on whether Gladstone's previous convictions could be introduced.

He said the ground failed as Gladstone’s appeal team were not considering how the trial actually proceeded but how they thought it was likely to progress.

In summary, the court rejected the appeal.

If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/ or visit Rape Crisis Help. In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.