The Court of Appeal has rejected Michael Ahern’s attempt to challenge an assault conviction arising from a dispute with his brother at neighbouring homes on a farm near Midleton, Co Cork.
Michael and Donal Ahern live in separate parts of a divided farmhouse. Michael Ahern has a right of residence in a self-contained section of the property, while Donal Ahern holds the legal estate in the farm.
The criminal case followed an incident on 28 November 2018. Donal Ahern admitted spitting at the lens of one of his brother’s body cameras before entering Michael Ahern’s part of the house and going upstairs. An altercation followed. Donal Ahern attempted to knee his brother in the groin and later retreated down the stairs. Both men fell during a further physical encounter.
Both complained to gardaí. Donal Ahern accepted an adult caution. Michael Ahern refused one and was prosecuted for assault under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. He was convicted in Cork District Court and unsuccessfully appealed to Cork Circuit Court.
Michael Ahern later argued that the Circuit Court had failed to properly apply laws protecting a person defending himself, his dwelling and his property. He also claimed the judge had effectively required him to prove self-defence rather than requiring the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Justice Edwards, giving the Court of Appeal judgment, rejected those arguments. The court found that the Circuit Court judge clearly understood that self-defence was being asserted. Her conclusion was that any threat had ended when Donal Ahern turned and was leaving, and that Michael Ahern’s pursuit amounted to a new act of aggression.
The Court of Appeal also found no evidence that a reverse burden of proof had been imposed. The Circuit Court judge had expressly said the prosecution case was proven and that self-defence did not arise.
Even if an error had been made concerning an honest but mistaken belief in a continuing threat, the Court of Appeal said that would have been an error within the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction and not a basis for judicial review. The appeal was dismissed.