DUBLIN, Ireland: A former Circuit Court judge has failed in his attempt to overturn his conviction for attempted rape and the sexual abuse of six young men when he was a teacher about 30 years ago.

In December 2023, Gerard O'Brien, 61, from Thurles in Co Tipperary, was found guilty by a Central Criminal Court jury of one count of attempted anal rape and eight counts of sexual assault involving six victims.

The Court of Appeal heard that when O'Brien was first interviewed by gardaí voluntarily, he denied the allegations. Later, he gave prepared statements in which he admitted to sexual activity with two of the complainants but claimed it was consensual.

He also admitted performing oral sex on another complainant but said he believed the young man had consented. He denied trying to carry out anal sex on that victim.

During the trial, O'Brien said he had initially lied to gardaí because he felt ashamed and panicked. He said he was extremely frightened at the thought of being charged with a sexual offense and lost control of his thinking.

He also accepted that having students in his home and in his bed was inappropriate and should not have happened.

O'Brien appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions were confusing and unfair to the defense.

His lawyer, Hugh Hartnett, told the Court of Appeal that the judge's tone may have given the impression that he had already formed a view about the case.

However, Anne-Marie Lawlor, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, said this claim was wrong and that the judge had not expressed any personal views.

Presiding judge Tara Burns said the appeal court rejected the argument that the judge's instructions were unbalanced or legally incorrect. She said the trial judge had clearly explained several times that all decisions about the facts and the outcome were for the jury alone, and that he had no role in deciding them.

She added that the jury had been properly instructed and that there was no legal error or misdirection.

Hartnett also argued that the judge's comment that a "make-believe" version of events should not be entered may have unfairly damaged O'Brien's evidence. He also pointed out that the judge told the jury they did not have to accept evidence they found unbelievable.

Judge Burns said it was clear that these comments applied to all witnesses, not just O'Brien.

She said that when the judge's full instructions were considered, it was very clear that the jury had to decide whether they believed the evidence and were sure of O'Brien's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Hartnett further argued that the judge suggested the jury should give less weight to O'Brien's statements because of his legal background.

Judge Burns said it was reasonable for the jury to consider that O'Brien, as a legal professional, may have understood the situation better. She said this could affect how they viewed his earlier untrue statements to gardaí and his later prepared statements, calling this a matter of common sense.

She also rejected the argument that the trial should have been split into separate cases. She said that having six complainants in a single trial did not unfairly affect O'Brien's defense, and that the trial judge was right not to separate the charges.