A court hearing recently disclosed that a female student at a university in Dublin exposed a security engineer who was surreptitiously observing her as she used the restroom. The engineer, Sean Farrell, aged 24, unintentionally caught himself on her mobile whilst she had it in “selfie-mode”.
Farrell, a Dublin native from Corduff Park, Blanchardstown, managed to evade imprisonment and was instead handed a half-year suspended sentence after being found guilty of salacious behaviour in Dublin City University (DCU)’s female toilets, an incident that took place on 20th September 2023.
Despite claiming that he mistakenly ventured into the women’s restroom and vehemently denying accusations of voyeurism, Judge John Hughes deemed him guilty of this “Peeping Tom” offence.
This judgment was announced after a highly contested hearing which was wrapped up in Dublin’s District Court on the preceding Wednesday evening.
Judge Hughes acknowledged that the female student was a vulnerable target at that time and that Farrell had violated his position of trust within the institution. He further recognised that this was the first time Farrell had been convicted of a crime.
Farrell, who faced suspension from his job as a security engineer at the university, was slapped with a €500 fine and ordered to pay €1,000 in damages. The judge dictated that Farrell risked the enforcement of his sentence if he failed to adhere to conditions imposed. He was further warned to avoid any interactions with the victim and forbidden from all public lavatories “except for those designated for male use”.
Recounting the incident, the student informed the court that she saw a man peering into her stall as she checked a received Snapchat message since her phone screen was in ‘selfie mode’. She expressed her fear and distress, stating it was an intrusion of her privacy that made her want to leave immediately. After the incident, she and her friend waited outside the restroom until Farrell emerged, upon which she identified him by his hair, eyes, and eyebrows.
Upon being cross-examined by defence attorney Roy O’Neill, the woman testified that she didn’t have enough time to take a comprehensive photograph of the accused, adding that he quickly lowered his head. She conceded, when questioned, that it was her word versus his.
The victim discussed her encounter with her friend, stating that the accused had been peeping over a stall. She stated that upon exiting the restroom, the accused repeatedly greeted her while she stared at him as he then began to tinker with an electrical box.
The court was informed by the head of faculty that the students were highly distressed when reporting the incident and thus campus security was notified. It came to light during the trial that Farrell had been working on an entry door situated outside the communal restrooms.
Speaking to Garda Paul Higgins during the investigation, Farrell conceded two weeks post the incident that his task involved running wiring through the women’s restroom. Despite this, he professed in court that he was in the restroom due to an urgent need to relieve himself.
Farrell confessed to the court that he was preoccupied at the time as his partner was ill, meaning his focus was elsewhere. Under the cross-examination by the prosecution, led by Ruth Walsh, he accepted that he had utilised the adjoining men’s restroom earlier that day.
During his testimony, Farrell did his best to persuade the court that the woman must have mistaken his work garments and equipment around his lower body, accusing her of jumping to conclusions and embellishing the facts.