The Court of Appeal has dismissed P.K’s appeal against his conviction for sexual assault, upholding a Circuit Court judge’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. The appeal concerned that refusal, not a rehearing of the charge.
P.K pleaded guilty on 3 July 2018 to one count of sexual assault. He was later sentenced to an effective four years in prison, with the final two years suspended on terms. His appeal challenged the 21 June 2019 decision refusing his application to change his plea to not guilty. An earlier judicial review application seeking to quash that decision had also been refused.
The conviction arose from an incident on 15 September 2015, when the complainant, then aged 16, visited P.K’s business premises with her father. The judgment recounts that P.K took her to a back room, ostensibly to examine her, and touched her under her clothing and underwear. She later told her father, who confronted P.K, and a complaint was made to gardaí. These circumstances were set out by the Court of Appeal as background to the appeal.
P.K initially pleaded not guilty. After the Circuit Court severed the indictment, the case proceeded on one count. A jury had been empanelled when, following a defence-requested recess on 3 July 2018, P.K pleaded guilty. He later sought to withdraw the plea, arguing that he had been affected by Xanax and stress about the prospect of imprisonment.
The appeal court rejected the argument that the Circuit Court judge had asked the wrong question by considering P.K’s capacity. It said the judge had also addressed the central issue: whether P.K knew what he was doing and entered an informed plea. The judge had relied on psychiatric evidence, affidavits from P.K’s former solicitor and junior counsel, and his own observations of P.K when the plea was entered.
The Court of Appeal considered a disagreement in the affidavits about when P.K first said he wanted to change his plea. It found the discrepancy had no significance and did not undermine the judge’s overall assessment. It also cited the psychiatrist’s view that Xanax might have minimally impaired judgment but had no bearing on fitness to plead.
The court said the trial judge had a broad discretion to allow a guilty plea to be changed before sentence, and found that he had exercised it properly. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed.