Irish court rejects appeal by Guyanese repeat sex offender who raped teen

Last Updated on Friday, 20 March 2026, 21:15 by Writer

Reproduced from Irish Times

by Ryan Dunne

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

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

O’Moore said 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 what happened was consensual. Judge Patrick McGrath sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The court heard Gladstone lured the young woman into his room, where he falsely imprisoned and raped her.

The jury was told the 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 Gladstone flew from Suriname to Schiphol Airport in the Netherlands and arrived in 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 trial jury conclude he was, in fact, of bad character.

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

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

The defence had argued the judge should have reminded the jury of Gladstone’s assertion he was given the victim’s phone number before she entered the room. In relation to this, the State submitted that a judge does not have to go into every detail of a case to a jury.

In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgment on Thursday, O’Moore noted 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, 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.

Noting this correctly recorded that the jury was fully aware of the “basic” account put forward by the appellant, O’Moore ruled 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 phone number and the timing of certain WhatsApp messages sent during the assault, O’Moore said 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 O’Moore, adding the appellant’s own counsel had agreed to the section-22 admission, which withdrew any evidence of good character. He said this was done as “a tactical move” to avoid a ruling that the appellant’s previous convictions could be heard by the jury.

In summary, the court rejected the appeal.