Sligo B&B owner who raped young guest appeals his conviction

Thomas Wymbs (68) was found guilty by a jury of one count of raping the woman between February 22 and 23, 2020, following a Central Criminal Court trial in February 2024.

Wymbs was living at and was the proprietor of Atlantic Haven B&B, Moneygold, Mount Temple, Co Sligo at the time the offence took place.

Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring sentenced him to seven and a half years with the final 18 months suspended on July 31, 2024.

The sentencing court heard that the complainant in the case, a European woman in her 20s, had been staying at the B&B. At the time in question, she was the only guest.

On the night of February 22, 2020, Wymbs invited her to join him for a drink. Her last recollection was around midnight, before she woke in the middle of the night to find herself in Wymbs' bedroom and he was raping her.

Launching an appeal against his conviction today, Michael Bowman SC, for Wymbs said the trial judge had made an error in refusing requests by the defence to address the jury on two issues.

He said the first related to comments made in the prosecution's closing speech and the second was linked to evidence given by an expert witness from Forensic Science Ireland in relation to alcohol consumption and its effects.

Mr Bowman said during the prosecution’s closing speech, the jury were invited to consider why the injured party might have made the complaint. He said the question posed by the prosecution was why would she make up this story.

“It’s a dangerous area you are asking a jury to traverse. You are asking them to say, “well why would they, what if”. That’s classical speculative territory,” said the barrister.

He submitted that this invited the jury to go beyond its function as a finder of fact.

He argued that introducing the victim’s possible motive as a factor for the jury to consider invited speculation on matters that were not part of the prosecution’s case. The barrister said a requisition was made for the judge to address this issue with the jury, but the request was refused.

Mr Bowman said a concern was also raised on Wymb’s behalf in respect of the judge’s charge regarding the evidence of an expert witness relating to alcohol consumption and the possibility that the injured party could have felt no adverse symptoms following the consumption of alcohol. He said a request to revisit this evidence was also refused.

Mr Bowman said alcohol featured “in a big way” in the case. He said the complainant had said she had only had two drinks, but toxicology results showed she was five and a half times over the legal driving limit.

He said that while it was certainly conceded there was alcohol consumed, the defendant’s position was that the alcohol was consumed post “the incident” in the garden.

He said revisiting the expert witnesses’ evidence was “a small ask” and “in the grand scheme of things” it would not have represented an unbalanced charge.

“I don’t believe it would have given it a prominence it didn’t deserve,” he said.

Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 17th

In response, Gerard Clarke SC, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that the complaint about the judge not repeating very recent evidence - that a person can have a high blood alcohol level without showing symptoms - overlooked the trial testimony regarding the complainant’s visible “level of drunkenness”.

He said Wymbs himself had told another person the complainant “got rotten drunk last night” and was so drunk she “walked into the wrong room” and “didn’t sleep in her own bed”. Wymbs also told gardaí the woman was “very drunk” and slipped down the steps at one point.

He said it was therefore “a bit unrealistic” that the judge would revisit evidence which had been given only the day before his charge to the jury that a person can consume a lot of alcohol and show no symptoms when “the clear evidence of the accused was that she was drunk”.

“In our submission there’s no reality whatsoever in that complaint,” he said.

Addressing the closing speech remarks, counsel argued that Mr Bowman failed to present the full context of the comments made.

He referenced the continuation of the statement, which said: “Why would she do that? We say to you the only reason is because what she describes is what happened to her, and she came back from [her home country] to describe to you what happened to her at the hands of Mr Wymbs.”

He said one purpose of what was said was to show consistency but another was to rebut the issue of consent in circumstances where it had been put to the complainant in cross examination that she had instigated the sexual interaction and was a willing participant in it and therefore had "obviously consented”.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision at a later date.