A former Circuit Court judge who was convicted in December 2023 of attempted rape and the sexual abuse of six young men when he was a teacher in the 1990s has appealed his conviction.

Lawyers for Gerard O’Brien (61) argued that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury were “confusing” and “weighted against the defence”.

They also said the tone of the charge “strayed into conveying the impression” that the judge held a view in respect of the charges and that the jury may have felt under pressure after the judge told them they could deliberate on Christmas Eve, if necessary.

However, the State side said the suggestion that there were personal views expressed in the judge’s charge was “misconceived” and urged the Court of Appeal to uphold O’Brien’s conviction.

O’Brien, of Old School House, Slievenamon Road, Thurles, Co Tipperary, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of one count of attempted anal rape and eight counts of sexual assault in relation to six victims. He had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The offences occurred at locations in Dublin between March 1991 and November 1997, when O’Brien was aged between 27 and 33 and working as a teacher at CBC Monkstown.

The victims – four of whom were students or former students of O’Brien – were then aged between 17 and 24. The six victims have previously indicated they wished for O’Brien to be named, but want to maintain their anonymity.

The defendant resigned as a Circuit Court judge, having been appointed in 2015, but had been on leave since the allegations came to light. He was jailed for four years in May 2024 by Judge Alexander Owens.

Imposing sentence, Owens said O’Brien was “unsuitable to hold office”. He said O’Brien appeared to “blame others for his predicament” and feels “he is the one manipulated, not the manipulator”.

O’Brien’s legal team submitted at his sentencing hearing that a psychological report stated their client was psychologically vulnerable, had limited coping skills, had suffered episodes of major depressive disorder and had “unmet sexual needs due to being gay in a homophobic society, and his disability”.

Opening the appeal against conviction on Tuesday, Hugh Hartnett, counsel for O’Brien, said there were a number of “distinct issues” with the content of the trial judge’s charge to the jury. He said the overarching complaint was that the directions were confusing and weighted against the defence.

“We say the errors are of such importance as to render the appellant’s trial unfair, when considered individually, but also cumulatively,” counsel said.

Hartnett argued the charge was “unbalanced” and that on numerous occasions the judge suggested that matters relied on by the defence were “unimportant” or “of less weight”.

Counsel referred to a comment made to the jury that it was important they did not “enter into a parallel universe of make-belief in relation to matters”, which he said had the effect of discrediting O’Brien’s evidence.

Counsel also suggested that the judge gave a “confusing” warning to the jury regarding the legal principle that lies told by a defendant do not automatically indicate guilt.

Hartnett also suggested there had been time pressure on the jury, as the trial took place close to Christmas. The judge told the jurors that they could deliberate on Christmas Eve, if necessary. Although this was presented as an option, Hartnett said the effect may have been to place pressure on the jury to reach a verdict.

He also argued the judge erred in refusing an application for separate trials. The defence had sought to divide the case into two trials, as the number of complainants and witnesses could risk “overwhelming” the jury and prejudicing O’Brien’s right to a fair trial.

In response, Anne-Marie Lawlor, counsel for the State, said the suggestion that there were personal views expressed in the trial judge’s charge was “misconceived”.

She said there were no personal views expressed in relation to the appellant’s guilt or innocence. She said a submission that there had been a “discrediting” of O’Brien evidence was entirely without merit.

The jury was advised by the judge that it was entitled to reject the testimony of any witness in the case, Lawlor said.

Addressing the application for separate trials, counsel said there was “no magic number” or “tipping point” where a court will not permit a trial of connected matters.

She asked the court to make a “correct and proper” finding that there was no issue raised in the appeal that would cause the court to quash the conviction.

Judge John Edwards said the three-judge court would reserve judgment.