Justin Finnerty 28

Description

A former Lidl worker who claimed that key evidence from a pair of pyjamas had been overlooked in his 2018 trial has had his appeal thrown out.

Justin Finnerty, then 22, was jailed for eight years and given an extended four year licence period after jurors at Oxford Crown Court convicted him of rape and sexual assault by penetration three-and-a-half years ago.

He raped the woman as she lay on his sofa, having invited her back to his Bicester home. His girlfriend was upstairs in the couples bedroom when he carried out his sick attack in July 2017. At his trial, Finnerty denied raping the woman claiming that they had had unprotected consensual sex several days earlier.

Lawyers for Finnerty asked the Court of Appeal on Tuesday to quash the Oxford jurys convictions, claiming that new evidence and alleged issues in how the trial was handled made them unsafe.

The new evidence was a report by a forensics expert, instructed by the bearded rapists legal team, questioning why Finnertys semen was apparently not found on pyjama bottoms worn by the victim on the night of the assault. It transpired that samples taken from the victim had been destroyed by the authorities.

Finnerty, formerly of Roman Way, Bicester, represented by Michelle Heeley QC at the hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice, argued that Judge Ian Pringle QC had failed to remind the jury of the defendants account when after being asked to by the 12-strong panel - he read from the victims police interview recounting her memory of the assault.

He suggested the jury was misled by inaccurate timings in a table of text messages he sent his girlfriend while downstairs with his victim, who was being sick. He claimed it meant the jurors were misled as to the amount of time he and the victim were alone together, giving the impression that it was for longer.

Rejecting the application for permission to appeal, Lord Justice Green said the new evidence the pyjamas could have been tested at the time and for whatever reason the defendants lawyers had not done so.

The new forensic report was based on a series of assumptions [about] what happened to the pyjamas that might be inaccurate.

The panel of three appeal judges said Judge Pringle, the trial judge, did not err in his handling of the case. We are clear none of it [the new evidence or grounds of appeal] casts doubt on the correctness of the convictions, Lord Justice Green said.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 12 year extended sentence, concluding: This was repeat offending upon a person in a vulnerable, incapacitated state. The pre-sentence report concluded [Finnerty] posed a danger to women.

We have read the pre-sentence report carefully and we conclude the judge was entitled to treat it as an important and persuasive factor in his own sentencing decision.