Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
8 July 2022
The Judge
Revised complaint focuses on crime of
Misconduct in Public Office, not harassment,
and claims serious new information has
arisen since first complaint was rejected
Garda finally
reconsidering
complaint
against
Judge James
O’Connor
By Michael Smith
A
FTER A rigmarole that revealed
powerlessness and weaknesses in
all the agencies of Ireland’s justice
system retired Tralee District Court
Judge James O’Connor is once again
in the sights of the Garda. In October 2021,
Village detailed four incidents where Judge
O’Connor is alleged to have had improper
contact with women who appeared in his family
court. Other media have reported another five
allegations, making nine.
Only one of the women has involved the
Garda. In July 2021 Village reported that this
woman had appeared in family proceedings in
O’Connor’s Court, that after three appearances
she had got an interim barring order, that the
judge had said in open court that he needed
her mobile number, so at her solicitor’s urging
she gave it to him and that he subsequently
texted her to say she had looked beautiful in
his court. She met him on a number of occa-
sions. She said she was afraid to say no since
he had not resolved the case and she would
need to go back into court.
Paul Murphy asked a question of the Taoise-
ach who appeared scandalised and agreed to
look into it. But in the end nothing at all came
of this.
The woman had contacted Harcourt Square
Garda Station Dublin in April 2018. Detectives
from the Special Crimes Operations Branch met
her at Killorglin Garda Station in May 2018, In
NEWS
July 2022 9
Enjoy
the end she says a Detective Sergeant told her
there was nothing to investigate and that it was
“a normal situation, boy meets girl”.
The woman complained to the President and
half the cabinet, Leo Varadkar, Charlie Flana-
gan (former Minister for Justice), the President
of the District Court, and Chief Justice Frank
Clarke but she had “not received much
acknowledgment or help.” The judges kicked
for touch, saying improper contact was
contrary to the “Ban-
galore principles”. It
was useless.
She also lodged a
formal complaint with
the Garda Síochána
Ombudsman Commis-
sion which in March
2019 found no evi-
dence that Garda
ocers had mishan-
dled her complaint.
Given how all this
has achieved nothing
for her, the woman’s
solicitors, KRWLaw are
now pursuing the State
under heads
including:
breach of the Data
Protection Act 2018; breach of the woman’s
constitutional rights including under Article
38.1 (fair trial) and Article 40.3.2º (privacy);
breach of s.3(1) of Ireland’s European Conven-
tion on Human Rights Act 2003; and the tort (a
civil not criminal oence) of misfeasance in
public oce.
Village suggested that given the abject inef-
ficacy of all these agencies of State, she go
back to the Garda, who may have considered
only the crime of harassment, a standard
enough crime but one for which the facts here
seem ill-matched, and ask for the case to be
pursued for the Common Law oence of Mis-
conduct in Public Oce’. Very simply, that is
what the judge’s scandalous actions most obvi-
ously appears to be.
The problem is that there is some doubt as
to the recognition of that crime in Ireland. It has
never been prosecuted here. Helpfully, how-
ever, In 2020 the Irish Times reported that Drew
Harris, the Garda Commissioner, had
announced that the Garda would investigate
allegations relating to the 1979 Whiddy disas-
ter, for the crime of misconduct in public oce
The woman wrote to the Garda Commis-
sioner, Drew Harris, last year.
Correspondence from the Garda Corporate
Services Unit on his behalf advised: “If you
have any additional information relating to this
matter, which you have not previously brough
to the attention of Gardaí, you may report it to
your local station, or any Garda station
nationally”.
Perhaps the Garda should have been satis-
fied to reinvestigate the case on the basis of
the woman’s informed revised view of the law.
In any event she wisely told the Garda she
would forward additional information and not
just a better view of the law. She had six new
points which change the information that
grounded the initial abortive complaint.
They embrace information on the law but
also information on the circumstances
“It’s Jmes”: the judge’s number on the
womn’s phone. When Village contcted
him on the number in lte My 2021, nd
explined wht it ws bout, he sid he hd
“nothing to sy”.
underpinning the case , and even some new
evidence that had not been available.
They include the following:
1) As to the law, she furnished the article in
which the Garda Commissioner said that
Misconduct in Public Oce is a crime.
2) As to the circumstances, she noted that at
least three other women have been
reported as having witnessed similar mis-
conduct from the same judge. They are
mentioned in a report she furnished to the
Garda. At least one of them has said she
would give information to any inquiry.
3) As to the circumstances, the woman also
said she believed the Garda did not actu-
ally look at the phone she gave them during
the first investigation which contained the
key evidence of Judge O’Connor’s miscon-
duct. She is oering to now furnish that
phone.
4) As to evidence, the woman claimed she
now knows the names of the lawyers who
spoke to Judge O’Connor when she was
with him outside the Court in Tralee. Their
evidence could corroborate her story.
5) She has also discovered the name of the
clerk on key dates when she was before
Judge O’Connor. She believes he could
give key evidence. That too is potential
new information.
On the back of this the Garda agreed to take
the woman’s statement again.
The woman met the Garda National Protec-
tive Services Bureau, Serious and Organised
Crime Section in Harcourt Square, Dublin, then
gave a typed statement to detectives from that
section in Tralee. That is now being reviewed
by a Detective Superintendent to determine
what further action may be necessary.
This is a credit to the Garda and serious pro-
gress.
