The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Jacintha McSherry O’Connor against her conviction on two counts of indecent assault, finding that evidence about an incident involving another teacher was relevant and necessary.
The appeal concerned portions of a pre-prepared statement McSherry O’Connor gave to gardaí. The trial judge allowed the prosecution to introduce material about an incident in a locked room involving a more senior teacher at the school, with that teacher’s name redacted. The appellant argued that the evidence was unnecessary and prejudicial, and that the jury might draw improper parallels between her experience and the complainant’s allegations.
The convictions followed a trial in which the complainant alleged that assaults occurred twice at his home after a family holiday in Spain. He also alleged assaults during the holiday, but no charges were brought in relation to those events. At the time, the complainant was about 13 and a first-year student; the appellant was about 24 or 25 and a trainee teacher. She also gave him grinds at his home outside school hours.
The prosecution’s case was that the appellant abused her position and groomed the complainant. The appellant argued that the incident with the senior teacher was neither relevant nor necessary to establish the relationship, and that the complainant’s evidence already showed its inappropriate nature. She disputed the prosecution’s account of when the complainant’s “obsession” began, saying it predated the incident and became more intense afterward.
The prosecution opposed removing the material, submitting that doing so would make the appellant’s account seem artificial and selectively preserve favourable parts. It said the evidence gave context, from her perspective, for why the complainant became more obsessed with her.
The Court of Appeal said background evidence may be admitted where it is relevant and necessary to give the jury a complete picture of the relationship before the alleged offending. It noted that the appellant’s statement said the complainant was outside the room during the incident and that she told him what had happened afterward. She said his obsession increased after that disclosure.
The court held that evidence of events in Spain did not prevent the prosecution from introducing this additional material. It considered the evidence relevant to the prosecution’s case that grooming was an ongoing process, and said the incident, by the appellant’s own account, intensified the complainant’s obsession. The court was not persuaded by the grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal. It did not set aside the convictions.