Dublin, – A former army captain’s dismissal from the Defence Forces over a sexual assault conviction was a "disproportionate" punishment, his legal counsel argued before the Court of Appeal.
Ross O’Shea was found guilty in October 2022 by a General Court Martial of sexually assaulting a female non-commissioned officer (NCO) at the Officer’s Mess following a social function at a Leinster barracks on June 25, 2020. The court martial, presided over by Military Judge Colonel Michael Campion, also convicted him of assault against the same officer under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
The offences occurred when O’Shea, found intoxicated and asleep outside a gymnasium where a barbecue had been held, was escorted to the Officer’s Mess by two female NCOs. He was later convicted of inappropriate physical contact and intimidating behavior towards one of the officers.
As part of his sentence, O’Shea was dismissed from the Defence Forces, and a six-month custodial sentence at the Curragh Camp was imposed, though it was suspended for one year. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in October last year.
Legal Arguments in the Appeal
Challenging the severity of his sentence, Senior Counsel James Dwyer argued that O’Shea’s dismissal was excessive and an error in principle. He highlighted mitigating factors, including the brief nature of the offence, the absence of penetration or violence, and the lack of premeditation. He also emphasized O’Shea’s 17-year "glittering career," lack of prior convictions, cooperation with the investigation, and expression of remorse.
Dwyer contended that the rank disparity between O’Shea and the victim, while an aggravating factor, did not elevate the offence to a "serious sexual assault." He argued that alternative sanctions, such as a reduction in rank, would have served as sufficient deterrents.
Comparing O’Shea’s case with similar incidents in the UK military, Dwyer cited examples where dismissals were overturned in favor of demotions, including cases involving inappropriate sexual conduct by officers.
Prosecution’s Response
Countering the appeal, Senior Counsel Remy Farrell, representing the Director of Military Prosecutions, maintained that O’Shea exploited his authority, invoking his rank to intimidate the victim and deter intervention from fellow officers. Farrell argued that the complainant’s inability to defend herself stemmed from military discipline and the inherent deference to senior officers.
"The complainant sought help from other officers, but the appellant told them to ‘f**k off’—and that was essentially what they did," Farrell stated, emphasizing O’Shea’s deliberate misuse of his position.
He further outlined additional aggravating factors, including O’Shea’s uniformed status, his duty of care, the breach of trust, and the use of aggression and force. Farrell insisted that deterrence was a "critical feature" in this case and argued that the imposed sentence was, if anything, lenient.
Court Reserves Judgment
Mr. Justice John Edwards, presiding over the three-judge panel, stated that the court would reserve judgment on the appeal.
O’Shea initially faced 18 charges before the Court Martial, pleading guilty to five, including misconduct and two counts of assault against female NCOs. He was convicted on two further counts, acquitted of seven, and had four charges withdrawn during trial.
The case highlights ongoing concerns regarding military discipline, rank exploitation, and the appropriate handling of sexual misconduct within the armed forces.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.