Man Appeals Conviction for Attempted Strangulation in Dublin

A man convicted of attempting to strangle a woman in a Dublin park is contesting the introduction of DNA evidence during his trial. Slawomir Gierlowski, aged 41, argues that the evidence obtained from a cigarette packet found near the scene should not have been admitted. His legal team presented their case at the Court of Appeal on Thursday, asserting that it was based on “fragile circumstantial evidence” with significant weaknesses.

Gierlowski, who resides on Galtymore Drive in Drimnagh, Dublin, was sentenced in 2018 to 22.5 years, with four years suspended, for a series of random attacks on women between 2011 and 2016. His conviction for attempted rape, sexual assault, and assault causing harm relates to an incident on the night of December 18, 2010. Sentencing for these offenses was postponed while he appealed both the convictions and the severity of his sentence. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed his appeals, resulting in an additional 10 years added to his sentence.

Following this, Gierlowski was found guilty in a Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial of assault causing harm, false imprisonment, and possession of an article in connection with the attack on a young mother at Ballymount Park on May 30, 2011. Throughout the proceedings, Gierlowski has maintained his innocence, disagreeing with the jury’s verdict.

During the appeal, Maurice Coffey SC, representing Gierlowski, emphasized the circumstantial nature of the case. He highlighted that two identification parades did not result in Gierlowski being identified, and the descriptions provided were imprecise. Coffey pointed out that the prosecution had drawn inferences based on evidence collected five years after the assault, which he argued could not reliably establish a connection to his client.

Justice John Edwards responded to Coffey’s arguments, noting that while cigarette boxes are commonly discarded as litter, a specific piece of flex with a plug attached, found at the crime scene, was not as ubiquitous. This flex bore a partial fingerprint matching Gierlowski’s, prompting the need for an explanation. Coffey contended that the police were requiring a response from someone regarding an item discovered years later in a public park, where it could have been handled by anyone.

The prosecution, represented by Karl Finnegan SC, argued that the cigarette box was not an isolated piece of evidence. He stated that it was essential to evaluate the circumstantial evidence collectively. Finnegan pointed out that Gierlowski had admitted to smoking but denied using Marlboro cigarettes, despite a Marlboro box being found with his DNA at the park. He further explained that a witness had observed a man smoking near the location of the assault, which aligned with the victim’s description of the assailant.

The evidence linking Gierlowski to the crime includes his fingerprint on the flex and the victim’s DNA, with the woman informing police that the flex was employed during the attack. Finnegan concluded that the significance of each piece of circumstantial evidence emerges when considered in totality.

Justice Edwards indicated that the court would reserve its judgment on the appeal. The case has garnered attention due to the serious nature of the allegations and the implications of the DNA evidence in the proceedings.