Tipperary judge sentenced to four years in prison for sexually abusing six young men while a teacher

Judge Alexander Owens made the statement on Friday when he sentenced Gerard O’Brien, 59, to five years and nine months in prison, with the final 21 months suspended under strict conditions. O’Brien will also be required to serve a two-year suspended sentence upon his release.

O’Brien, of Old School House, Slievenamon Road, Thurles, Co. Tipperary, was found guilty by the Central Criminal Court last December of one count of attempted anal rape and eight counts of sexual assault in relation to six victims.

The crimes occurred between March 1991 and November 1997 at various locations in Dublin. O’Brien was a teacher at CBC Monkstown at the time and was between 27 and 33 years old. The victims – four of whom were students or former students – were between 17 and 24 years old at the time.

The six victims had previously indicated that they wanted to mention O’Brien’s name but maintain their anonymity.

O’Brien denied all allegations. He resigned in January from his position as a Circuit Court judge, a position he had been appointed to in 2015. He has been on leave since the allegations became known.

Conviction

Passing sentence, Judge Owens said the breach of trust involved in the offence and its significant impact on the victims were among the aggravating circumstances of the case.

He said O’Brien’s legal career after retiring from teaching in 1997 and his subsequent appointment to the judgeship had made it “perhaps inevitable” that his victims would come forward.

Judge Owens noted that O’Brien’s conviction “in my view demonstrates that he is unfit for judicial office.” The judge said he took into account mitigating circumstances such as O’Brien’s age and disability in reaching his sentence.

Referring to the contents of a report by the Irish Prison Service, he said prison was not a “comfortable place” for O’Brien due to his age, disability and “previous position in society”.

All six victims as well as numerous supporters and family members were in court for the hearing on Friday.

Summary of the facts

At an earlier hearing, Garda Inspector Jonathan Hayes told prosecuting counsel Anne Marie Lawlor SC that five of the six victims woke up to find O’Brien performing sexual acts on them to which they had not consented. Four of those victims woke up to O’Brien performing oral sex on them and the fifth victim said he woke up to O’Brien licking his face and pressing his penis against his buttocks.

One of these five victims also said that O’Brien had attempted to rape him anally. The last victim’s claim related to an act of masturbation in a pub toilet.

O’Brien was born with a rare congenital condition: phocomelia, a side effect of the drug thalidomide. During the trial, O’Brien testified that his mother was “convinced” he had taken the drug.

Because of this condition, O’Brien was born without upper limbs and was missing a lower limb. The court found that he requires assistance with everyday tasks, including using the toilet. He has no previous criminal record.

Inspector Hayes explained that all six victims had helped O’Brien with everyday tasks, including using the toilet, prior to the sexual assaults. The court heard that alcohol was involved in each incident, and the six young men and O’Brien drank alcohol.

“Predatory behavior”

Michael O’Higgins SC, defending, asked the court to take into account all relevant mitigating and personal circumstances in sentencing. He suggested the court consider a suspended sentence and asked for as much mitigation as possible for his client.

Judge Owens said the sentencing process was “not as straightforward as it may seem” and he had to consider the evidence, the relevant sentencing principles, the victims’ statements and the contents of the reports filed on O’Brien’s behalf.

He said O’Brien’s disability meant he had “very serious physical limitations” in his life and was dependent on the help of others. But Judge Owens also said O’Brien had abused his disability to “exploit” his victims.

He said O’Brien had behaved in a “predatory manner” and the jury could have been in no doubt that he had manipulated things to give himself the opportunity to carry out these activities.

The judge noted that O’Brien accepted that the jury had evidence on which to find him guilty. However, he said O’Brien had shown no remorse and maintained his position at trial that he had engaged in consensual sexual acts with three of the victims and that the remaining incidents had not taken place.

Judge Owens said O’Brien “appears to blame others for his predicament” and feels “he is the one being manipulated, not the manipulator.” Judge Owens said O’Brien’s victims do not agree with this and he does not accept it either.

“This attitude is unrealistic, complacent and, in my opinion, ignorant,” said the judge. He said O’Brien was not fully rehabilitated because he had not fully dealt with his criminal conduct.

“Complete trust”

Judge Owens noted that four of the six victims in the case were pupils or former pupils of the school where O’Brien worked. He said these boys had “complete confidence and admiration” in O’Brien and wanted to help him.

The judge said O’Brien was aware of the inappropriate behaviour and there was no reason why a student should be put in the position of sharing a bed with him.

The trial heard that three of these four victims woke up to O’Brien performing sexual acts on them. The fourth student was forced to masturbate in a pub toilet.

Judge Owens noted the age difference between O’Brien and his victims, particularly the four victims who were secondary school students at the time of the crimes.

The judge noted that O’Brien had testified that he never intended to cause harm, but said it was an inevitable consequence of his actions. It was more likely that O’Brien did not think about the harmful consequences of his actions at the time, the judge continued.

Judge Owens said alcohol was a “disinhibiting factor” in the offences and while some of the offences were opportunistic, the rest showed elements of planning.

Judge Owens agreed that while there is a greater understanding in society today of the impact of sexual offences than there was in the 1990s, this does not significantly reduce O’Brien’s culpability. He added that sex offenders do not tend to think “too deeply” about the impact of their actions.

The judge said that in his view, O’Brien’s responsibility was not diminished by the lack of support available to him at school or by the difficulties he faced as a gay, disabled man at the time.

Judge Owens said that while the fact that O’Brien was himself a victim of sexual abuse as a child provided some degree of mitigation, it did not excuse his conduct or relieve him of his duty of care towards his pupils.

He said he would give O’Brien credit for having no previous convictions and for contributing to society since 1997, when his last crime was committed.

He expressed the view that O’Brien’s disability “precluded” the risk of further offending. He also noted that the events leading to the end of O’Brien’s teaching career may have “terrified” him, while his subsequent treatment and later legal training would have made him aware of the likely consequences of those activities.

Statements from the victims

At an earlier sentencing hearing, three victim statements were presented to the court. These men described mental health problems, trust issues and other effects of the sexual assaults.

A victim who was sexually abused by O’Brien in a pub toilet said she spent many years believing she was “stupid or naive” to allow the abuse to happen, but now believes she was “manipulated and manipulated”.

This victim described O’Brien as a “fraud” and a “terrible human being” who was unwilling to admit wrongdoing.

“You not only deceived and manipulated me and the other victims, but also the school community in which you worked.

“I don’t want your pity or your apology because it’s too late for that, but maybe one day you should put aside your arrogance and ego and think about how wrong what you did to me back then was.”

Another complainant who gave an impact statement was a victim of sexual assault and attempted rape by O’Brien and said he would continue to attend therapy even after the criminal case is over.

I am sure that I will continue to attend therapy regularly after Gerry O’Brien has completed his sentence. He will be released at some point, but I will always bear the badge of someone with poor mental health.

The third plaintiff, who gave a victim impact statement, woke up when O’Brien performed oral sex on him and felt compelled to reciprocate the same act. He said he was “happy, outgoing and a trusting person” before meeting O’Brien.

“It is impossible to say how my life would have turned out had I not experienced his abuse of trust, his advances and his manipulative actions. There is no doubt that I would have been better off and a very different person if I had never met O’Brien.”

Mitigation

O’Brien is a former teacher and lawyer who served as the Crown Prosecutor for North Tipperary. He was appointed to the District Court in 2015 but was placed on leave after the allegations came to light, the court heard.

Mr O’Higgins said O’Brien had “climbed great heights but crashed” and “lost everything”. He said his client had not received compensation as a thalidomide survivor because there was “causal doubt” as to whether his mother had taken the drug.

He stated that although there were six complainants, these were isolated cases and the attempted rape was at the lower end of the scale. A probation report, a psychological report and an occupational health report were presented to the court.

Mr O’Higgins said the psychological report found O’Brien was mentally vulnerable, had limited coping skills, had suffered episodes of major depressive disorder and was at low to moderate risk of re-offending.

Mr O’Higgins asked the court to take into account the fact that his client had not reoffended since 1997, saying he had been “effectively rehabilitated”. He also said his client had been a victim of sexual abuse as a child.

He said his client accepted that the jury had the right to hear the evidence and reach a verdict, but “his position on the offences was as set out (in his evidence)” during the trial.

– If you are experiencing any of the issues addressed in this article, click here for a list of support services.