The second day of a hearing into the man’s alleged behaviour heard from a woman known as Colleague A
A woman sobbed after recllaing how she felt she couldn’t speak out against alleged sexual misconduct against her for fears she would lose her job.
The second day of a teacher regulation agency (TRA) agency hearing into Hugh O’Neill was told how a woman known as Colleague A was made to feel like “less of a person” by his alleged behaviour when the pair worked together at a special school in Merseyside. This included claims he engaged in non-consensual sex on multiple occasions outside of the Knowsley school.
The TRA panel was told Mr O’Neill, who is Irish and was observing from the Republic of Ireland via videolink, is reported to have made a number of comments about the female staff member, including saying she “looked busty” and was a “sexy b***h.” He denies the allegations and said there had been a consensual relationship between the pair.
READ MORE: Primary school targeted by ‘opportunists’ with ‘dinner knives’ causing £10k damageREAD MORE: Hotel overlooking Everton’s new home at Bramley-Moore Dock gets go-ahead
Hearing members were informed how Mr O’Neill made remarks about Colleague A’s body and appearance “almost every day” and it was “rare to go a whole day without something like that being said” to her. The woman said this began over the phone.
She added how the unwanted physical contact began with Mr O’Neill when he asked to touch her breasts in a stockroom and put his hand on them. Nicholas Kennan, on behalf of the teacher, said his client accepted he had asked Colleague A for help in the stockroom but denied any comments and touching.
Colleague A said her recollection of events was true because she recalled how “traumatic” it had been. The hearing was also told how a second incident took place when she was in a classroom.
The woman said how Mr O’Neill had come up behind her and touched her breasts before a member of staff came into the room. Colleague A said how Mr O’Neill said this was “exciting for him” and he enjoyed taking these risks.
Colleague A alleged Mr O’Neill touched her breasts on a further two occasions during the working day. She said how the incidents made her feel like “less of a person and cheap” and it “reduced me to body parts every day.”
Asked by Mr Kennan why she didn’t report this behaviour if it made her feel this way, Colleague A said: “I honestly thought I would lose my job if I said anything. I didn’t think I’d be believed and they’d get rid of me and I’d have no job or money coming in.”
Put to her she was in a consensual relationship with Mr O’Neill, Colleague A denied this and said there had been a “clear power imbalance” between the two. The panel was told how on one occasion, Colleague A felt like she had been coerced into having sex with Mr O’Neill in his car.
Becoming visibly upset, she explained why she had gone along with it. She said: “If I do what he wants, he’ll leave me alone. It was relentless. If I do it, then it’s over.” Colleague A described it like “a trap” she was in.
Details were also made public about other alleged incidents that occurred outside of school. It was said how at one time, Mr O’Brien called Colleague A when he was drunk asking for a lift.
The panel was told the woman “reluctantly” did so and went into his home where she was pressured to stay the night and share a bed with Mr O’Neill. It was alleged he removed her jeans and had non-consensual sex with her.
A month later, it was claimed Mr O’Neill called Colleague A again asking for a lift when he was drunk. On this occasion, Colleague A said he made her feel stupid for wearing jeans in the bed, prompting her to take them off. She alleged that following this, she was subjected to another non-consensual sexual assault.
References were made to Colleague A’s continuing contact with Mr O’Neill despite these alleged incidents. She said this was due to being “stuck in a trauma bond with him.”
When police visited her place of work, Colleague A indicated she did not wish to pursue a formal complaint and subsequently resigned a year later, claiming it “felt impossible to work there anymore.”
Mr Kennan relayed evidence from a former colleague of the pair, who said they shared a “mutual rapport” and enjoyed “camaraderie” than any inappropriate conduct. Colleague A denied this. The hearing continues.
