Man’s conviction for defiling teen girl overturned after court finds trial judge 'crossed a line'

Fiona Magennis

A now 34-year-old man has had his conviction for defiling a 16-year-old girl overturned, after the Court of Appeal found the trial judge “crossed a line” in his charge to the jury.

The three-judge court struck down the conviction after hearing that the trial judge had suggested that if the jury rejected the man's claim that he didn't have sex with the alleged victim, they might take a 'jaundiced' view of his claim that he believed she was 18.

Delivering the court's judgment on Friday, Judge Nuala Butler said: “Suggesting it would be reasonable to treat the appellant’s second defence as to the complainant’s age as a lie because to reach that point the jury must already have concluded that he lied regarding sexual intercourse is tantamount to telling the jury that if the first defence fails the second should also fail."

Judge Butler said the appellant was entitled to run alternative defences, even if those defences were logically inconsistent with one other, which was not necessarily the case here.

She said the trial judge was obliged to direct the jury “separately and correctly” on each of the defences run.

“Suggesting it would be reasonable to treat the appellant’s second defence as to the complainant’s age as a lie because to reach that point the jury must already have concluded that he lied regarding sexual intercourse is tantamount to telling the jury that if the first defence fails the second should also fail,” she said.

Judge Butler said the judge’s remarks prevented proper consideration of the second defence and deprived the appellant of the benefit it might otherwise have afforded.

The man’s trial last year heard that the complainant was 16 at the time of the alleged offence, while the appellant was 28.

The alleged injured party said she had been sexually assaulted by the appellant in a laneway outside a work party. The next day, she said she went to the man’s house where they had consensual sex.

The appellant denied this and also maintained that he believed she was over the age of 18.

The appellant was found not guilty by unanimous verdict of sexual assault. However, he was convicted by a majority verdict of defilement of a child on July 15th, 2020, at a location in Westport.

In November 2025, Judge Eoin Garavan sentenced the man at Castlebar Courthouse to two years in prison with the final 12 months suspended, but the custodial element of the sentence was deferred, and he was subsequently granted bail pending appeal.

In upholding the man’s appeal, Judge Butler said the core complaint related to the portion of the trial judge’s charge where he grappled with the question that the jury would face if they were to reject the man’s primary defence that sexual intercourse did not occur.

She said the trial judge told the jury that if the exculpatory statement was incorrect “it may jaundice your views” on the appellant's statement about his belief that the complainant was 18 years old and that this “would be reasonable in my view”.

She said the judge immediately characterised his own statement as “classic comment by me”.

“There is a material difference between telling a jury it is open to them to draw an inference from evidence before them if they have reached a certain conclusion and telling them that it would be reasonable for them to take a jaundiced view of one element of the appellant’s defence because of the conclusion they might have reached to another,” she said.

"Counsel for the appellant is correct in saying that the trial judge crossed a line in making this comment.”

Judge Butler said the comment was not made “on a minor or ancillary matter” but rather on “a fundamental issue which went to the core of the appellant’s defence”.

The man had also argued that the jury in his trial were misdirected when the judge made a comment that appeared to agree with the prosecution’s claim that “a Bart Simpson defence” was being offered.

At the appeal hearing, counsel for the appellant, Giollaíosa Ó Lideadha said that during the closing speeches in the trial, counsel for the prosecution said: “The defence are running a Bart Simpson defence.

"They’re saying it never happened, but if you find that it did happen, well then, he thought she was over 17... It’s sort of, ‘I didn’t do it, but you can’t prove it anyway’.”

Ó Lideadha said that the remark by the prosecution was “offensive”, so when the judge commented that he wasn’t saying whether he agreed or disagreed, that was a misdirection, as it implied the judge may have agreed with the comment.

Rejecting this ground of appeal, Judge Butler said the introduction of the phrase “Bart Simpson defence” was “probably unhelpful” but the contention that the use of the phrase itself was sufficiently “disparaging” or discredited the defence to such an extent to render the trial unfair was “unstateable”.

She said it was clear from the trial judge’s charge overall that he directed the jury if they were to reject the “didn’t happen” defence, they still had to be satisfied that all the ingredients of the offence, including those related to the girl’s age, were present.

She said it was unfortunate that much of the argument on this appeal, and before the Circuit Court, got “derailed” because of offence taken by counsel for the appellant at the language used by counsel for the prosecution.

“It can be difficult at times to express legal concepts in a manner that a jury will readily understand and the temptation to use familiar examples from popular culture is understandable, if not always wise,” she said.

Allowing the appeal against conviction, Judge Butler directed a retrial.

Eilis Brennan, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, requested that the matter be remanded to the Western Circuit in early October.

The judge granted the application and remanded the appellant on continuing bail until that date.

If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/ or visit Rape Crisis Help. In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.