David McConaghie: Conviction Upheld on Appeal

Creationist voyeurism

Creationist voyeurism

Back in September when we wrote Bathroom Pervert David McConaghie Is Sentenced, we thought we had seen the last of that creationist preacher, political activist, and convicted pervert. We had been posting about his depravity for three years — since we first wrote Creationist Suspected of Bathroom Voyeurism, where we described his preaching and political activities.

But once again his name popped up in the Belfast Telegraph, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Northern Ireland. Their headline (it has a double meaning) is Ex-DUP adviser loses appeal over voyeurism conviction.

We didn’t know the creationist had filed an appeal. Let’s get right into the news story. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

A former DUP [Democratic Unionist Party] adviser will be spending Christmas behind bars after a judge dismissed an appeal over his conviction for voyeurism.

Christmas in prison? That will be heavenly for the rev — assuming they have some kind of communal bathroom arrangement. Then we’re told:

David McConaghie was originally convicted of secretly recording a female colleague using the toilet after a trial at the end of September and jailed for four months. The 50-year-old lodged appeals against both his conviction and sentence, but that was dismissed by County Court Judge Patrick Lynch QC [Queen’s Counsel, presumably]. McConaghie was a former adviser to Upper Bann MP [member of Parliament] David Simpson.

We’re all familiar with the sordid tale. Let’s read on:

Convicting McConaghie for a second time, Judge Lynch told him: “The court expresses its revulsion towards your behaviour. You have shown no remorse. You seemed to have tried to imply there was a vendetta against you by persons unknown. You are incapable and unwilling to face up to your responsibilities.”

We congratulate the judge for making such a restrained statement. The news continues:

Judge Lynch did, however, cut the original jail term by a month due to McConaghie’s previously clear record.

That means he’ll serve only three months in jail. Not much of a penalty. Anyway, then the newspaper gives a long summary of the evidence against McConaghie. We won’t repeat that here, but if this case is new to you, and you’re curious about how creationist preachers behave, then click over there and read it. Skipping a few paragraphs, we come to this:

In his final submissions yesterday defence lawyer Michael Tierney argued that an intention to obtain sexual gratification could not be proved, although he accepted “the device was placed in a toilet, involving a person engaging in a private act who had not given consent”.

McConaghie never testified, but that’s been his lawyer’s defense all along: “Yes, it all happened just like that, but you can’t prove that he did it because he’s a pervert!” Here’s how the court dealt with that clever argument:

Having deliberated in chambers for just 15 minutes, Judge Lynch told the court that “common sense should not be left at the door of the court. I have no doubt this was sexual,” he said.

And now, dear reader, we should be done with this saga. But in spite of McConaghie’s conviction and disgrace, we’re left with three lingering questions: (1) When released from prison, will McConaghie continue his perverted ways? (2) Will he continue to be a creationist preacher? And (3): Are questions 1 and 2 really the same question?

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

2 responses to “David McConaghie: Conviction Upheld on Appeal

  1. Being a Creationist means never having to say you’re sorry…

  2. “In his final submissions yesterday defence lawyer Michael Tierney argued that an intention to obtain sexual gratification could not be proved, although he accepted “the device was placed in a toilet, involving a person engaging in a private act who had not given consent.”

    Your Honor, I accept that I beat the person on the head and took his wallet without his consent, but an intention to obtain monetary gratification cannot be proved.

    It works for everything!