A man jailed for raping a grandmother in an east Belfast car park failed today in a bid to overturn his conviction.
Judges in the Court of Appeal rejected 31-year-old Lucasz Artur Kubik’s claims that the jury at his trial was not properly directed.
Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan said: “We have no sense of unease about the verdict.”
Kubik, who is originally from Poland, was sentenced to nine years in prison after being found guilty of raping and sexually assaulting the 53-year-old woman.
During his trial at Belfast Crown Court the jury heard the victim was attacked as she made her way home from a relative’s house during the early hours of January 31, 2013.
She had gone to a taxi depot in east Belfast, but it was closed.
At that stage she spoke to a group of women and Kubik, who claimed to be a French man named Chris.
With no credit on her phone, the victim agreed to go to their house to call for a lift home.
She said that as they walked the other women disappeared after Kubik shouted something to them in a foreign language.
He then asked if she wanted to work for him, adding: “I’ll show you.”
At that stage he raped her against a parked car, the court heard.
Although she repeatedly told him she was a grandmother Kubik was said to have persisted with the sex attack before eventually running off.
Following his arrest the appellant denied any sexual contact with the victim.
He then changed his account to allege the pair engaged in consensual sex acts, claiming he had not wanted his girlfriend to discover he had cheated on her.
Kubik, who has lived in Northern Ireland since 2006, sought leave to appeal the conviction.
His lawyers claimed the trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury on the reasonable possibility that his semen was found on the victim due to his version of events.
It was further argued that an alternative count of attempted rape should have been left to the jury.
But Sir Declan, sitting with Lord Justices Coghlin and Gillen, ruled there was nothing unsafe about the verdict.
Refusing leave to appeal, he said: “In our view the complainant’s evidence was supported by her recent complaint, the forensic evidence in relation to the sperm heads, and the inferences open to the jury as a result of the lies told by the applicant at interview.” ends