The Court of Appeal has dismissed Marlies Walsh’s appeal against her conviction for harassing a doctor at Temple Street Hospital, finding no basis to set aside the guilty plea on which the conviction rested.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 30 November 2023, dealt only with the conviction appeal. It did not decide Walsh’s appeal against her sentence: two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, and an order barring her from contacting the doctor for 20 years.
Walsh’s jury trial in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court began in October 2022. After the prosecution opening and discussion of evidence issues, she asked to be re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the single harassment charge. The Court of Appeal described her later challenge to the conviction as, in substance, an application to withdraw that plea. She had argued ineffective assistance of counsel, problems with the investigation and duress.
The Court of Appeal said an appellate court could set aside a guilty plea in this kind of case only in exceptional circumstances supported by cogent evidence. Walsh had not given sworn evidence or filed an affidavit, and there was no third-party evidence supporting her claim that stress had overborne her will. The court said the material instead indicated she understood her options and pleaded guilty for strategic reasons, including to bring the proceedings to an earlier conclusion so she could return to her family.
The judgment recounted that, at sentencing six weeks later, the defence had told the Circuit Court that Walsh’s son had serious, ongoing health problems and that she had been under significant stress. Her counsel presented her contact with hospital staff as arising from her concern for her son and her wish to advocate for patients and families. The Court of Appeal found that the mitigation had addressed those matters and that Walsh had not raised a wish to change her plea at sentencing.
The court also dismissed the appeal ground concerning the absence of an electronic recording of Walsh’s Garda interview. Her counsel had raised the incomplete interview record before the plea, and the court held that issues about evidence that might have been heard at trial could not be pursued after she pleaded guilty.
The judges concluded that Walsh’s rights to a fair trial had been respected and dismissed the conviction appeal.