Court rejects 'separate trials' argument by former Cork scout leader jailed for indecently assaulting boys

The Court of Appeal was told that due to the 'circumstances of cruelty' involved in an attack he committed on one boy in a wooded area, the offences against this victim should have been the subject of a separate trial to that concerning four other complainants

Michael Noel Sheehan, of Chimneyfields, Glenville, Co Cork, had pleaded not guilty to charges of indecent assaults against five young boys, which took place at locations in Cork and Waterford between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990. File picture: Cork Courts Limited

WARNING: Some readers may find the following report upsetting

The Court of Appeal has rejected an argument by an 80-year-old former Scout leader who indecently assaulted five young boys almost 30 years ago that separate trials should have taken place due to the serious nature of the allegations made by one of his victims.

In dismissing an appeal by Noel Sheehan on Wednesday, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the connection of the appellant to all of the complainants through his leadership of a scout troop was of particular relevance.

Sheehan, of Chimneyfields, Glenville, Co Cork, had pleaded not guilty to charges of indecent assaults against five young boys, which took place at locations in Cork and Waterford between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990.

He was found guilty on 16 counts of indecent assault by a jury in April 2024 and sentenced by Judge Helen Boyle at Anglesea Street Courthouse in Cork to four-and-a-half years, with the final six months suspended.

Separate trial argument

In launching an appeal against his conviction in January, barristers for Sheehan submitted to the Court of Appeal that due to the “circumstances of cruelty” involved in an attack he committed on one boy in a wooded area, the offences against this victim should have been the subject of a separate trial to that concerning four other complainants.

Counsel for the appellant, Ray Boland SC, said that in the first instance, a complainant gave evidence that he was alone in a bedroom when Sheehan closed the door and stayed in the room. The complainant said Sheehan pulled the duvet off him and tried to jump on top of him, before he attempted to put his hands down the victim’s underwear.

This complainant gave evidence that on another occasion, he and the appellant were walking in the woods when Sheehan attacked him. The witness said that Sheehan was “shouting all sorts”, adding that he thought the appellant was going to kill him. 

The witness said that he was made to rub Sheehan’s genitals, before Sheehan tried to put his genitals inside the victim. “I think his penis was inside me,” said the witness.

Mr Boland submitted that this complaint was of a much more serious character than the counts relating to the other victims, as it occurred outdoors in broad daylight under “circumstances of cruelty”.

Counsel for the State, Katherine McGillicuddy BL, said the trial judge was correct to refuse the defence application for a separate trial, as all the complainants were male children who were part of a Boy Scout troop, with Sheehan as their leader.

She said all the incidents occurred at scouting events that involved sleepover elements. She said that the incident that occurred in the woods was undoubtedly more serious, but it was still a sexual offence that remained of a similar nature to the other counts.

Court of Appeal ruling

In delivering the court’s judgment, Ms Justice Burns said that the allegation in question undoubtedly referred to sexual conduct of a much more serious nature. However, she said it ultimately related to an alleged offence of a sexual nature which differed from the other indecent assaults only in terms of its gravity, rather than in terms of its character.

“The connection of the appellant to the complainants through his leadership of a particular scout troop which all of the complainants were members of, is of particular relevance with respect to the level of opportunity it presented to the appellant,” said Ms Justice Burns.

Ruling that the trial judge did not err in refusing to sever the indictment to exclude the complaints of this witness from the other allegations, Ms Justice Burns said the court was dismissing the appeal.

- If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please click here for a list of support services.