Thurles Information

Mr Gerard O’Brien, the former Circuit Court judge, convicted of attempted rape and sexual abuse involving six young men, has appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeal, with his legal team alleging that the trial judge’s directions to the jury were confusing, unbalanced and unfair to the defence.

Mr O’Brien, aged 61 years, of Old School House, Slievenamon Road, Thurles, Co Tipperary, was convicted in December 2023 at the Central Criminal Court of one count of attempted anal rape and eight counts of sexual assault. The offences related to six complainants and occurred between March 1991 and November 1997, when O’Brien was working as a secondary school teacher at CBC Monkstown in Dublin.
Four of the complainants were students or former students of Mr O’Brien at that time. They were aged between 17 years and 24 years old.
The complainants have previously indicated that they wished for Mr O’Brien to be named while maintaining their own anonymity.

Mr O’Brien had pleaded not guilty to all charges. He later resigned from the Circuit Court, having been appointed to the bench back in 2015, and had been on leave since the allegations emerged. In June 2024, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by Mr Justice Alexander Owens, who said Mr O’Brien was “unsuitable to hold office”.

Opening the appeal today, senior counsel for Mr O’Brien, Mr Hugh Hartnett, said there were a number of significant issues with the trial judge’s charge to the jury. He said the overall complaint was that the directions were confusing and weighted against the defence, and that the alleged errors were sufficient, individually and cumulatively, to render the trial unfair.

Counsel submitted that the charge was unbalanced and, at times, had the effect of diminishing matters relied upon by the defence. He referred to comments made by the trial judge warning jurors not to enter a “parallel universe of make-belief” and to observations that jurors were not obliged to accept evidence they considered “incredible” or “outlandish”. Mr Hartnett argued that, although not directed exclusively at Mr O’Brien, the emphasis of those remarks bore particularly on the appellant’s evidence.

The defence also challenged the judge’s direction on lies told by an accused, arguing that the warning given to the jury was confusing. It was further submitted that jurors may have felt pressure to reach a verdict after being told they could deliberate on Christmas Eve if necessary. Additional grounds included the refusal of an application for separate trials and the judge’s direction that jurors could take account of Mr O’Brien’s legal knowledge, when assessing statements and interviews with gardaí.

For the State, Ms Anne-Marie Lawlor said the suggestion that the trial judge had conveyed personal views on guilt or innocence was “misconceived”. She submitted that the jury had been properly instructed and that there was no merit in the claim that Mr O’Brien’s evidence had been unfairly discredited. She also rejected the criticism of the warning on lies, saying there was no requirement for any set formula of words.

Ms Lawlor said the trial judge had properly addressed the challenges arising from historic allegations and had correctly dealt with the application for separate trials. She urged the Court of Appeal to uphold the conviction.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the three-judge court would reserve judgment.