Ex-Garda has Strokestown eviction assault conviction quashed

A former Garda who was found guilty of assaulting a security man during the repossession of a house in Strokestown in 2018 has had his conviction quashed by the High Court.

Kevin Taylor of Ardnacassa Lawns, Dublin Road, Longford, was convicted of assaulting the security staff member during the execution of a possession order for the property at Falsk, Strokestown, on December 11th, 2018.

The security man had claimed that Mr Taylor grabbed his genitals, causing him to go to ground, but it was later accepted that CCTV footage did not show such an act taking place.

Strokestown District Court convicted Mr Taylor (then 65) of assault for “laying hands” on the security man and imposed a fine of €200 in August 2021.

In March 2024, Mr Taylor took an appeal to the Circuit Court against the conviction, which resulted in a two-month custodial sentence.

Mr Taylor claimed the assault charge against him lacked sufficient specificity such that he could not adequately cross-examine, nor defend himself under the principle of fair procedures.

Mr Taylor took his case to the High Court against the DPP seeking a quashing of his conviction.

In his High Court judgment, Mr Justice Garrett Simons wrote that the group executing the enforcement order included the county registrar, Aidan Devlin and a number of security personnel including Ian Gordon.

Video footage played to the District Court and the Circuit Court, it was accepted, did not show Mr Taylor grabbing the testicles of Mr Gordon.

However, it did show him “laying hands” on Mr Gordon, leading to the Section 2 assault conviction.

Mr Taylor asserted that he had acted to protect another man, who was at the scene but was not a resident, and whom he described as a disabled person with a brain injury.

Mr Taylor also contended that the man was being pushed or attacked by security personnel and that his own intervention was directed towards protecting the man, rather than assaulting Mr Gordon.

The Circuit Court trial judge acknowledged video evidence did not depict the precise act alleged by Mr Gordon, and also acknowledged that there was some divergence in Mr Gordon’s evidence as to the exact location of the incident.

One of the grounds upon which leave to apply for judicial review was granted to Mr Taylor was that the prosecution failed to specify the precise factual basis of the alleged assault.

It was argued that this violated the principle of “clear and unambiguous charges”.

It was further pleaded that this made it difficult to prepare a proper defence and raised doubt about whether the prosecution met its burden of proof.

Mr Taylor also raised an objection to the trial judge’s decision to question Mr Gordon while Mr Taylor was cross-examining.

Mr Justice Simons wrote in his judgment: “The applicant submits that the prosecution proceeded on the basis of a single, clearly particularised factual allegation, namely, that he had assaulted the complainant by grabbing him by the genitals.”

Mr Justice Simons further wrote: “The trial judge failed to determine the applicant’s asserted belief as to the circumstances in which force was used and failed to assess the reasonableness of the force by reference to those believed circumstances.”

The judge further said that the Circuit Court judge had undermined the effectiveness of cross examination “by taking over the questioning for a period and putting the matters in a compressed form.”

“The applicant was thereby deprived of a fair and effective opportunity to test the complainant’s account on matters central to the prosecution case,” he found.

Mr Justice Simons then quashed the assault conviction and added that it was not in the public interest to have the matter remitted, as Mr Taylor had already served a two-month sentence for contempt in the matter.