The High Court quashed Peter Farrelly’s District Court conviction for sexual assault, finding that the conduct of the hearing could not be viewed by a reasonable onlooker as showing the constitutional justice required in a criminal trial where a person’s liberty was at stake. The court did not decide whether the case should be sent back for retrial and said it would hear further submissions on that question.
Farrelly had been convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment by District Judge Anne Watkin at the Dublin Metropolitan District Court on 5 December 2013. The charge arose from an alleged incident at the Palace Night Club on Camden Street, Dublin, on 1 July 2012. The complainant alleged that Farrelly pressed or squeezed her genital area over her dress. He denied the allegation and said he had little memory of the night, during which he was also assaulted and injured.
In the judicial review, Farrelly argued that the judge’s remarks showed a fixed policy that sexual assault warranted prison, and that she failed to consider his personal circumstances. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, arguing that any grievance about the proceedings or sentence was better addressed by an appeal to the Circuit Court. The Director also said the hearing had allowed the defence to make submissions and that the community service legislation had not been brought to the judge’s attention.
The High Court reviewed the transcript of the District Court proceedings. It found that the judge’s interventions went beyond seeking clarification and that she expressed belief in the complainant’s credibility before the prosecution case had concluded, despite discrepancies in her statement, evidence and the CCTV. The judge also questioned Farrelly throughout his evidence. The court was particularly concerned by the judge’s expressed fears that he might reoffend, although he had no previous convictions.
The High Court did not accept that the judge had predetermined the case or applied a fixed policy that inevitably led to a prison sentence. It nevertheless concluded that the judge’s remarks showed leniency, a probation report and a community service order could not be considered without Farrelly confessing guilt after conviction. The court held that the hearing failed the requirement that justice must both be done and appear to be done.
The court therefore quashed the conviction. It made no ruling on a retrial, which remained to be considered after further submissions.