A former army captain who claimed a sexual assault on a female solider was an “aberration” in an otherwise “glittering career” has failed in his appeal against his dismissal from the Defence Forces.
Ross O’Shea was found guilty by a General Court Martial in October 2022 of sexually assaulting a female non-commissioned officer (NCO) following a social function at a barracks in Leinster on June 25th, 2020. He was tried in September, 2022 before military judge Colonel Michael Campion and a court martial board.
The former army captain was convicted on October 14th, 2022, of sexually assaulting the woman by moving his open palms up and down her back saying “come on, come on”, or words to that effect, at the officers’ mess. He was also found guilty of one charge of assault against the same officer contrary to Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 by moving towards her in a manner that caused her to apprehend an assault.
His dismissal was ordered as part of the sentence imposed on these two charges.
READ MORE
A custodial sentence of six months detention in the Curragh Camp was also imposed but this was suspended for a period of one year.
O’Shea was charged and tried before the court martial with a total of 18 offences.
He pleaded guilty to five charges, including charges of conduct contrary to good order and two charges of assault against two female NCO officers contrary to Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997. He was convicted of two other charges – sexual assault and a section 2 assault – and acquitted of a further seven charges, while four more were withdrawn during the trial.
The offences occurred when the former army captain attended a barbeque hosted by the Covid Joint Task Force during a lockdown period in the Covid-19 pandemic. O’Shea had been brought to the officers’ mess by two female NCOs after he was found asleep and in an inebriated state sitting in a chair outside a gymnasium where the barbeque was earlier held.
Delivering judgment at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Mr Justice John Edwards said the military trial judge approached the issue with great care and gave “detailed” and “cogent” reasons for concluding that dismissal was required in the circumstances of this case.
He said O’Shea was an officer in a disciplined force and “fell short” of the standards and personal qualities expected of him. These were “highly relevant facts”, he said.
Mr Justice Edwards went on to note that if these matters had been before a civilian court, they may have been considered to merit a non-custodial sentence. However, he said the fact the offences occurred in the military context “changes the calculus”.
He said the military judge had suggested O’Shea’s conduct was not only criminal in nature but was “corrosive of discipline in the Defence Forces”. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that he was entitled to arrive at that conclusion, he said.
Mr Justice Edwards said the military judge’s conclusion that O’Shea’s conduct could not be reconciled with continued service as an officer of the Defence Forces was justified.
Speaking outside court after the judgement was delivered, O’Shea’s two victims said they welcomed the court’s decision to uphold the former army captain’s dismissal from the Defence Forces.
At the Appeal hearing last February, lawyers for O’Shea argued the offences were an “aberration” in an otherwise “glittering career”.
Defence senior counsel James Dwyer said that while the disparity in rank between the army captain and the injured party was an aggravating factor, it was insufficient to warrant it being characterised as a “serious sexual assault”. Counsel argued the dismissal was “disproportionate” and said other orders, such a reduction in rank, would have met the objective of deterrence.
Counsel for the Director of Military Prosecutions, however, submitted that Ross O’Shea invoked his rank during the assault, leaving the victim feeling she could not defend herself due to her training and the “innate deference” officers have for their superiors.
Remy Farrell SC said the core issue was the disparity in rank between O’Shea and the female officer. He said the difference between offences committed in a civilian context and those committed in a military one were highlighted by the trial judge.
