Man who raped sisters, daughters and niece appeals, claiming victims should not have been allowed give evidence by video link

Fiona Magennis

A 64-year-old man who sexually abused and raped two of his sisters and his niece until they ran away from home and later raped his own two daughters is seeking to have his conviction overturned, arguing the victims – including one who was receiving treatment for cancer at the time – should not have been allowed to give their evidence by video link.

Richard O’Brien denied all the offences but was convicted unanimously by a jury following a trial in 2023.

His five victims – O’Brien’s sisters Theresa and Anne, niece Mary and his daughters Sonya and Agnes - indicated that they had waived their right to anonymity so he could be named.

The Central Criminal Court heard that the abuse of his two sisters and his niece occurred at his family home at O’Moore Road, Ballyfermot and continued until each of the three women ran away as teenagers.

The women also gave evidence of physical abuse and emotional torture at his hands.

The women described growing up in a dysfunctional home where there was neglect, physical abuse and little point in disclosing the abuse they were suffering at the hands of their brother.

O’Brien went on to sexually abuse and rape his own two daughters until they were taken into care.

One of his daughters later told her foster mother that she had been sexually abused by her father and the gardaí were alerted. Her sister, aunts and cousin then also came forward.

The Central Criminal Court heard that O’Brien also wrung the necks of a puppy and a kitten belonging to his sisters during their childhood.

O’Brien of Cremona Road, Ballyfermot, Dublin 11, was convicted by a jury of 63 counts of rape, sexual assault and indecent assault against the five victims on dates between 1975 and 2011. He was sentenced to life in prison by Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring in May 2023.

Launching an appeal against his conviction on Tuesday, Paul Murray SC, for O’Brien, argued there was a risk of unfairness to O’Brien in allowing the victims to give evidence by video link where the natural reaction of the witness would not be clear.

He said in order for a court to grant leave for a witness to give testimony by video link there must be sufficient evidence that it is necessary.

Mr Murray said the defence did not oppose the application for video evidence in respect of Agnes, who has special needs, but did oppose it in respect of the other complainants.

He said he accepted that video link was suitable for Sonya also as she would not have been able to give “her best evidence” in person.

However, counsel said a medical report submitted for Anne noted she had a long history of severe anxiety and depression and may find it hard to give evidence in front of the defendant. He argued this could be said of “many, many complainants” in cases of this nature.

In respect of Mary, Mr Murray said a doctor’s report outlined medical and mental health difficulties. However, he said the report didn’t say that she was not fit to attend court but rather stated it would be “preferable” that she gave her evidence by video link.

“Preferable does not meet the threshold,” counsel said.

He maintained the circumstances as set out were not sufficient in respect of the other complainants for the judge to make the decision that she did in this case. The unfairness, Mr Murray said, was that the jury were deprived of seeing any of the complainants in person.

Mr Murray noted that the last complainant, Theresa, had a “serious medical condition,” but said that the most the medical report noted was that she be given “some special consideration” in how she gave evidence. He added that this could have taken the form of breaks to facilitate her recovery.

“I say that no good reason was put forward in respect of three of the complainants,” he said, adding that although reasons were presented, they were neither sufficient in nature nor in quality for the judge to grant leave for the evidence to be given via video link.

Mr Murray also argued that certain rape counts on the indictment should have been withdrawn from the jury because no evidence of a lack of consent was given by some of the complainants.

He said the absence of consent had to be established. “I say there was an evidential deficit,” he said. “Even if the charges are denied.”

In response, Seoirse Ó Dúnlaing SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said Theresa was receiving treatment for cancer at the time of the trial. He said evidence was put forward as to why she couldn’t attend court as there was a risk of infection if she was to leave her house.

He said Theresa gave her evidence from home and An Garda Siochana attended to make sure no one else was present.

Mr Ó Dúnlaing said the judge had discretion in deciding whether to allow each of the victims to give evidence by video link, adding the decision was not made “unreasonably” or “arbitrarily”.

“There’s no suggestion that the jury did not have an adequate opportunity to assess the demeanour of the witnesses, that is what, in truth, it boils down to in regard to the argument of unfairness,” he said.

Regarding the lack of consent ground, Mr Ó Dúnlaing pointed out that O’Brien’s position at trial was that the instances of sexual abuse simply never happened.

He argued the issue of consent simply did not arise in O’Brien’s interview with the gardaí nor in cross examination of the complainants.

The trial judge was entirely correct in determining that the counts of rape should go to the jury, counsel submitted.

Mr Justice John Edwards said the court would reserve judgment and deliver its decision on Thursday.

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.