Rapist who attacked woman days after arriving in Ireland claims trial was unfair

Randi Gladstone (42), formerly from Guyana, has argued that his trial was rendered unfair after he was forced to withdraw his false claims of previous good character

A repeat sex offender jailed for luring a young woman into his room to force himself on her just weeks after he arrived in Ireland has argued that his trial was rendered unfair after he was forced to withdraw his false claims of previous good character or face having his convictions for rape, kidnap and false imprisonment revealed to the jury.

Barristers for Randi Gladstone (42), formerly from Guyana, argued that making a statement withdrawing the appellant’s earlier evidence of good character made the jury conclude that he was in fact of bad character. 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.

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”. Gladstone had 19 previous convictions which include rape, kidnapping, robbery and false imprisonment.

Last June, he was jailed for a further six months for failing to notify gardai 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 11, 2023. Two weeks later, he raped the 18-year-old woman in shared accommodation.

At the Court of Appeal today (MONDAY), Gladstone’s legal team, led by Dominic McGinn SC, submitted three grounds of appeal. The first concerned the trial judge’s clarification to the jury of what false imprisonment means.

Mr McGinn said that any comment by the trial judge or direction of law must be balanced, as it cannot be a one-sided recitation of the evidence. Mr McGinn said that this was not done when the judge clarified the concept of false imprisonment in response to a question from the jury. He said that the judge correctly recited the legal provision but then gave a very brief summary of the prosecution case, which was the victim’s assertion that she was trapped in the room. Counsel said that a significant part of the defence case was that the door could not be locked from the inside and someone could merely pull the handle down.

“If the court had simply cited the law and not commented on the facts, there would not be an argument, but the judge went on to lay out the prosecution case,” said Mr McGinn, adding that the judge should have gone further by saying there was a dispute concerning this evidence.

Mr McGinn went on to say that there was objective evidence about mobile phone analysis that undermined the victim’s account, so the judge should have summarised that position to the jury. He said 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.

A final ground of appeal contended that the appellant was unfairly put in a position where it appeared that the court was intending to allow the introduction of his previous convictions. This occurred when he was giving evidence to explain WhatsApp messages, with the appellant saying that his mother had criticised him “for being too friendly and kind”.

The prosecution alleged that this showed he had given evidence of good character and thereby “dropped his protection or shield”, which ought to have resulted in the jury being informed of his previous convictions. The trial judge agreed with the prosecution that the appellant had given evidence of good character. This resulted in Gladstone agreeing to put a formula of words before the jury by way of a section 22 admission, withdrawing any evidence of good character.

The defence argued that this had a prejudicial effect, as the section 22 admission made it impossible for the jury to avoid concluding that he was in fact of bad character. Mr McGinn said that, given the nature of the appellant’s previous convictions, the introduction of these would have had “a devastating impact on the trial”, which was dealing with an emotive offence such as rape.

On behalf of the State, Patrick Gageby SC said that Gladstone had portrayed himself as being of good character, with the prosecution relying only on what he had said. He said that the appellant 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, Mr 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.