B&B owner who raped young guest fails in appeal against his conviction

Sunday World

29-07-2025

'There is no reason to suppose that the jury did not faithfully apply the principles of law,' said Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy
A Sligo B&B owner who raped a guest nearly 40 years his junior and claimed it was consensual has failed in an appeal against his conviction.
'There is no reason to suppose that the jury did not faithfully apply the principles of law,' said Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy at the Court of Appeal today, rejecting an appeal by Thomas Wymbs (68).
Wymbs 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.
Stock image
Today's News in 90 Seconds - July 28th
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 earlier this month, 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 she would make up this story.
In delivering the court's judgement today, Mr Justice McCarthy said that at the core of the case was the prosecution contention that the complainant was incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol, giving rise to sleep.
He said that a forensic scientist conducted analyses of the complainant's blood and urine, going on to say that the court did not think that the trial judge's failure or omission to summarise this expert evidence in his charge to the jury gave rise to a deficient charge.
He said that the trial was a short one, and the evidence of this witness could only have been fresh in the minds of the jurors since that evidence was given on the previous day.
Mr Justice McCarthy said that there was no disagreement about the high level of intoxication of the victim and the statistical evidence merely bore that fact out.
Concerning the second ground of appeal, Mr Justice McCarthy said that the defence had the opportunity to respond to the prosecution's closing speech. He also said that the trial judge referred to the standard and burden of proof and told the jury not to speculate in any way when deciding the case.
'There is no reason to suppose that the jury did not faithfully apply the principles of law elaborated in the charge,' he said, adding that the court did not think the prosecuting counsel invited speculation in his closing speech.
In summary, the court rejected the appeal.