Child rapist Stephen 'Rossi' Walsh's 'confused' miscarriage of justice bid fails
A notorious child rapist has failed in a "confused" bid to have an attempt by the State to amend his post-release supervision conditions declared a miscarriage of justice."The fact that someone was inconvenienced is not a miscarriage of justice," said Mr Justice John Edwards today, as the Court of Appeal rejected an application by Stephen 'Rossi' Walsh. The 78-year-old argued that the State had acted unlawfully by bringing him back to court in a bid to add extra conditions to a supervision order that would take effect upon his release from prison.Walsh, with former addresses at Belgrave Road, Rathgar, Dublin 6, and Coologmartin, Donadea, Co Kildare, was sentenced to ten years in jail by Mr Justice Paul Carney in February 2010 for raping a nine-year-old girl in the early 1990s. He was made subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001, with seven years post-release supervision.In December 2011, Walsh then received another consecutive 12-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, for sexual assault and defilement of a child on dates in 2008 and 2009. In November 2024, when Walsh was about to be released from prison, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) brought an application before the Central Criminal Court seeking to add conditions to his post-release supervision order, pursuant to section 30A(2) of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001.Mr Justice Paul Burns refused this on the basis that the statute did not permit what was sought. At that hearing, following an application by the defence team, the judge declared the proceedings to be "a second sentencing hearing" for costs purposes.Walsh subsequently sought an order for a certificate of miscarriage of justice under section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. In response to this, the DPP said that there was confusion in Walsh's application, as he sought relief pursuant to both section 2 - an application to the Court of Appeal to review a case as an alleged miscarriage of justice - as well as section 9 of the 1993 act - which deals with compensation where such a miscarriage occurs.The State noted that these are entirely separate procedures. The DPP also submitted that the hearing in November 2024 was not an attempt to resentence Walsh, but rather an application to add conditions to his post-release supervision, which was rejected by the court.The State said that Walsh's application under section 9 was "fundamentally misconceived" as his convictions remain extant. Representing himself at the Court of Appeal today, Walsh argued that the State had acted unlawfully in bringing him back to court to make their application.Mr Justice Edwards pointed out that this application by the State had been unsuccessful. He said that the State brought Walsh back to court because they wanted to add extra conditions to the post-supervision order, but the judge hearing this application had ruled that the State was not entitled to do that."That's not a sentencing, that's an application to vary conditions," said Mr Justice Edwards, adding that the State had authority to make such an application. Walsh replied that the State had acted unlawfully by bringing him back to court 14 years after being sentenced. He said he had been unable to find any authority permitting this and asked what law the State had invoked."I can't just walk into this court and say I'm making an application," he said. Replied Mr Justice Edwards: "You can, actually. There's nothing to stop someone coming in to say, 'Can I mention this matter?' Anyone can come in at any point and ask a judge to entertain an application."Walsh repeated his argument that the process had been unlawful, claiming that he did not receive any paperwork to suggest the State's application was under any procedure laid down by law. Mr Justice Edwards pointed out that nothing happened as a result of the State's application. He said that sometimes people do not follow procedure when they bring an application, but this is never characterised as a miscarriage of justice, which refers to when someone is deprived of their liberty inappropriately."The fact that someone was inconvenienced is not a miscarriage of justice," he said. Mr Justice Edwards went on to say that the applicant's case was very firmly predicated on his belief that he had been sentenced twice.However, the judge pointed out that the matter in November 2024 had been listed as a sentencing day purely for the purpose of costs, as that was how it was treated by the legal aid board. "It can be equated with a sentencing day for costs, but you can't turn milk into water," said Mr Justice Edwards.On behalf of the State, Dean Kelly SC said that no unlawfulness was conceded by the State in this matter, as the appropriate statutory measures were relied upon. He said that there was no wrong or prejudice against the applicant, adding: "It's admirable by him as a citizen that he wants to police the system, even if he has a dog in this fight."In delivering the court's judgment, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy noted that the application made by the State in 2024 was to extend the supervision order, as another sentence had been imposed on Walsh which was to run consecutive to the original sentence. He said that while Mr Justice Burns had refused this application, it had been a perfectly legitimate application by the State, which had been unsuccessful to Walsh's benefit.Finding that an unsuccessful application by the State to the applicant's benefit cannot fall into the category of a miscarriage of justice, the three-judge court refused Walsh's application.Want to see more of the stories you love from Dublin Live? Making us your preferred source on Google means you’ll get more of our exclusives, top stories and must-read content straight away. To add Dublin Live as a preferred source, simply click here.
