National: Social worker jailed for defiling boy launches bid to have conviction overturned

A SOCIAL worker who was jailed for defiling a boy who was in the care of the State at the time has launched an appeal against her conviction.

The appellant has argued that Facebook messages exchanged between her and the boy should not have been put before the trial jury.

The 44-year-old woman, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of her victim, appealed the conviction on the grounds that a request for the messages by the State to the social media giant were sought under the wrong section of a 2008 treaty on mutual legal assistance between Ireland and the United States.

She was sentenced two four years' imprisonment, with the final two years' suspended, by Judge Cormac Quinn sitting at Clonmel Circuit Criminal Court in November 2022.

The woman had pleaded not guilty but was convicted by a jury after an 11-day trial.

The boy, who was 16 at the time, was in her care at a Midlands school when she sexually defiled him at her home on unknown dates between April 1 and May 15, 2016.

At the Court of Appeal, Dermot Cahill SC, for the woman, submitted that the request for Facebook messages between the appellant and the boy that were used in the trial was not made by the requisite body.

It was submitted by the appellant's lawyers that the request for the material provided was made not by the Central Authority for Ireland [The Minister for Justice] as it should be but rather by the Director of Public Prosecutions and was not, therefore, in accordance with the Ireland/US Treaty.

It was also submitted that there was insufficient evidence that the "certificate of authenticity" signed by an official of Facebook Inc actually related to the disc containing the material which the prosecution sought to put in evidence. 

"The point is that the DPP is not the Central Authority for the purpose of the Ireland/US Treaty and that Section 62 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 [relied upon by the State] has no application to a request under the Treaty," it was submitted.

"Section 62 is not concerned with the production of documentary evidence in the form of records or material of that nature," he submitted.

"The judge erred in law, principle and fact in acceding to an application to admit evidence under the Mutual Assistance Act 2008, in respect of Facebook messages allegedly passing between the appellant and the complainant in circumstances where the relevant conditions set in the Act were not met," said Mr Cahill.

"The entire process in obtaining the certificate was flawed and the certificate should not have been permitted into evidence together with the accompanying CD Rom," he said.

Michael Delaney SC, for the State said: "There is no requirement under the Treaty that the written request be formulated or signed by the Central Authority, merely that it be transmitted by the Central Authority." 

Court of Appeal President Mr Justice George Birmingham said "the request satisfied the US. The form did not cause them to protest - it satisfied their needs. They received a document and they were satisfied with it".

"The certificate was unlawfully obtained. They did not get the proper request from the Department of Justice under the Treaty. The DPP request is unlawful," replied Mr Cahill.

"Why have a rule of law at all if we are only happy with the end result?" said Mr Cahill, who said there was "error upon error about how they went about it". 

Mr Delaney said the State was "entitled to rely on the certificate and the process". 

"It was important evidence. A degree of common sense must prevail in what the prosecution has to do," he added.

Mr Delaney said the issue was not a "complex" one and that he was "satisfied" that the evidence was properly acquired.

"The treaty does not require, formally, the 'central authority' to draft the request. By 'central authority' we understand that to mean the transmission or sending of the document, rather than the compiling of it," said Mr Delaney.

Mr Justice Birmingham said the Court of Appeal would reserve its judgement in the matter.