Rapist loses his appeal on 15 year sentence
Published 09/08/2014 | 00:00
A POLISH national who had a previous conviction for attempted rape has lost his 15 year appeal for separately raping a woman in the public toilets in Kanturk.
Przemyslaw Jakubowski (39) was wearing women's underwear when he grabbed the woman from behind as she was drying her hands and pulled her into a cubicle and subjected her to a 40 minute ordeal in which he raped and threatened to kill her.
Jakubowski, formerly of Egmont Court, Earls Street, Kanturk had pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to 12 counts including rape, threats to kill, assault causing harm, sexual assault and false imprisonment during the attack on the woman on the afternoon of March 9, 2010.
In June 2011 the Polish native, who has a previous conviction for attempted rape, was sentenced to 15 years by Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy after being found guilty by a jury on 11 counts.
Jakubowski appealed the decision and his legal argument centred around the search warrant which was used by Gardai to search his home. He claimed that the search warrant was invalid.
If he was successful in his appeal it would have meant that items obtained by Kanturk gardai during the search would not have been admitted as evidence during his trial.
Among the items seized were ladies' underwear, including an item of aqua blue coloured underwear, yellow underwear and a peach slip which the victim had noticed protruding from underneath his outer clothes.
Forensic analysis determined the presence of a DNA profile on those three items matched the profile of the victim, the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) heard.
Jakubowki lost his appeal last Wednesday and a three judge Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) said the trial court was right not to exclude the evidence obtained on foot of the search warrant.
The Superior Court Rules provide that failure to comply with the District Court rules, under which the warrant was issued, "does not automatically invalidate the proceedings", the CCA said.
If the District Court rules stood alone, there "might be an interesting jurisprudential question" as to the impact of the failure to comply with the format of such rules.
But taken in combination with the Superior Court rules, these were "sensible provisions" and it seemed to the CCA that they applied here "with the effect that it cannot be said the search warrant was invalid".