Jailed Donegal teacher argues jury shouldn't have heard she was sexually assaulted

A secondary school teacher jailed for the indecent assault of a 13-year-old pupil nearly 40 years ago has argued that the jury in her trial should not have been given evidence of her telling the boy that she was herself the victim of sexual assault. 

Jacinta McSherry O'Connor (64), The Mullins, Donegal Town, pleaded not guilty to two counts of indecently assaulting a male student in 1985, but she was found guilty following a Dublin Circuit Criminal Court trial in October 2023.    

The court heard that she indecently assaulted the boy on two occasions in his home on dates between June 1 and September 1, 1985, while giving him grinds. She was aged 24 at the time and the boy was 13.

]At a previous hearing, the man, now in his fifties, stated in a victim impact statement that McSherry O'Connor had been like a "spectre" hanging over him his whole life. He said she took his innocence away and that what happened was “deeply and morally wrong”.

McSherry O'Connor was sentenced by Judge Elma Sheahan to three years on each count, with the final six months suspended. 

In a written submission to the Court of Appeal, McSherry O'Connor's legal team asserted that the trial judge erred by refusing to accede to an application to exclude portions of her interview with gardaí, in which she referenced an alleged incident with another senior teacher where she was the victim of a sexual assault. 

At the Court of Appeal today on Thursday, counsel for the appellant, Marc Thompson BL, said that his client had given these details of being the victim of sexual assault in a statement she made, which the prosecution introduced into evidence. He said that these portions of her statement should not have been given to the jury in the case. 

Mr Justice John Edwards said the appellant had conversations with the complainant of a sexualised nature. He said that by telling the boy details of the incident in question, this showed her willingness to discuss sexual matters with a young boy who she knew to have a crush on her.   

“I have no difficulty accepting how that might have been relevant,” said Mr Justice Edwards, adding that the account she gave to the young boy led to “an intensification of the obsession” he had with her.   

Mr Thompson confirmed that it was his contention that it had been unnecessary for the prosecution to show the progression of this obsession, adding that the introduction of this portion of the appellant’s statement had been superfluous.    

Mr Justice Edwards said that the appellant had been in a room with the doors locked, which came to the attention of the boy, who became concerned and questioned her. He said she was prepared to tell the boy details that led to the intensification of his obsession, adding that the level of the obsession was all relevant background. 

Mr Thompson replied that the boy was in love with her, which was already an intense obsession, so he questioned to what degree the intensification was increased. 

"The fact that she was prepared to tell him, knowing all that, shows she wasn’t willing to pour cold water on it,” said Mr Justice Edwards. 

Mr Thompson said that the appellant, who was 24 at the time while the boy was 12, had just been the victim of sexual assault herself, so she “blurted it out”, to which Mr Justice Edwards replied that she must have appreciated the power dynamic at play. 

“It seems an extraordinary thing that a teacher would tell a 12-year-old boy things of a sexual nature, knowing that he had a crush on her,” said Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy. 

Mr Thompson replied that there still had to be some assessment of the probative nature of the statement before it was put before the jury. 

Garrett Mr McCormack BL, counsel for the DPP, said that grooming was a feature of this case, so this statement was probative evidence as what McSherry O’Connor said to the boy intensified his feelings. 

“This all demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that we know as grooming. It is relevant evidence,” said Mr McCormack.   

Mr Justice Edwards said that the court would reserve judgement in the case.