Randi Gladstone – Ireland

A repeat sex offender jailed for luring a young woman into his room to rape 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.

Gladstone was convicted in January last year of rape, sexual assault and false imprisonment in a holiday complex in Co Dublin, on August 25, 2023.

He was previously deported and barred from entering the UK.

He had pleaded not guilty, but the jury rejected his claim that the activity was consensual and Mr Justice Patrick McGrath sentenced him to ten years in prison.

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, 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.

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.

Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, presiding over the three-judge court, said that judgement in the appeal will be delivered on March 10 next.