Queen v Gerald O'Hara
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NICA 1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 15 January 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NICA 1
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11396
ICOS No:
Delivered: 15 /01/21
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT
___________
THE QUEEN
-v-
GERALD O’HARA
___________
Before Morgan LCJ, McCloskey LJ and Scoffield J
___________
Brendan Kelly QC and Mark Barlow of counsel (instructed by Higgins, Hollywood and
Deazley Solicitors) for the appellant
Gary McCrudden of counsel (instructed by the Public Prosecution Service)
for the respondent
___________
McCloskey LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
Introduction
[1] Leave to appeal to this court having been refused by the single judge, Gerald
O’Hara (“the offender”) renews his application to the plenary court. The offender is
aged 68 years, a married man and the father of four adult children.
Prosecution and Conviction
[2] It is appropriate to begin with the injured parties. These are three adult
ladies, all of whom have waived their right to anonymity. They are
Sinead McKenna, Brenda Moore and Denise Moore. The offender is their uncle. The
crimes perpetrated against them were committed during an estimated period of
around nine years, between 1985 and 1994. The periods of offending against the
three injured parties ranged from around two years to around seven years
respectively. The injured parties’ ages ranged from approximately 10 to
approximately 17 years. They were children at all material times. All of the offences
2
were perpetrated at the offender’s home and place of work. The overall period under
scrutiny was estimated to be 1980 to 1994. (This court recognises that precise
specification is not realistically possible). The injured parties first complained to
police in October 2013. The offender has at all times maintained his innocence.
[3] The history of the criminal process is a little protracted. The charges
preferred against the offender consisted of 23 counts of indecent assault on a female
person contrary to section 52 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (the “1861
Act”) in a single indictment. The offender has undergone two trials, each in the
Crown Court before a jury. The outcome of his first trial in April 2017 was a jury
verdict convicting him of 8 of the 23 counts and no agreed verdict in respect of the
remainder. On 23 May 2017 he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with a
custodial element of seven years to be followed by two years’ probation. On 09
January 2019 a different constitution of this court allowed his appeal and ordered a
retrial on all 23 counts.
[4] The offender’s second trial was conducted between 20 May and 04 June 2019.
On the latter date the jury found him guilty of 14 of the counts and not guilty of the
remaining nine.
Sentencing
[5] On 05 July 2019 the offender was sentenced. The particulars are set forth in
the table reproduced below. He received an effective total sentence of 10 yea rs and 6
months imprisonment. This had a custodial element of 8½ years, with a sequential
period of two years’ probation. This took the form of a custody/probation order
made under Article 24 of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1996 (having regard to the
dates of the offences). The judge also imposed a sexual offences prevention order
(“SOPO”) (see infra).
Count
Victim
Particulars of indictment
Sentence of
imprisonment
Cumulative
sentence
4
Brenda
Moore
Specific count re abuse at
the car (rubbing around
vagina area with hand)
9 months
9 months
6
Brenda
Moore
Specific count – While the
victim was babysitting, the
applicant came into the
bedroom and digitally
penetrated victim’s vagina.
18 months concurrent
with count 4.
18 months
7
Sinead
McKenna
Specific count re first time
of abuse at the car
(touching vagina area with
9 months concurrent
with 8 and 9;
consecutive to the
3 years
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
King v Jonathan Playfair
...SOPO [66] I am satisfied that the terms of the SOPO sought are both “necessary and proportionate” within the meaning of R v O’Hara [2021] NICA 1. The period will be 10 years. Ancillary Orders [67] By virtue of the sentences passed you will be subject to the notification requirements of the ......
-
King v Thomas McKenna
...to the cases of R v DO [2006] NICA 7, the AG ref in 2005 re Martin Kerr 2005 [NICA] 33, R v Curran [2013] NICA 1, and R v Gerald O’Hara [2021] NICA 1 which I have found of assistance. Each of those cases involved similar sentencing issues, multiple victims, multiple offences, 8 protracted o......