Sexually assaulted step-sister when she was a child
Carlow Courthouse
A CARLOW man was found guilty of two counts of sexually assaulting his step-sister when she was a young child and he was a teenager when he appeared before the last sitting of Carlow Circuit Court.
The defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had denied two sample counts of sexually assaulting the step-sister when she was aged between five and seven years’ old and he was aged between 13 and 15 years’ old. The offences occurred at an address in Co Carlow between October 2009 and October 2012.
The court heard that the complainant’s mother and the defendant’s father were in a relationship at the time and that he could visit his father at weekends.
The injured party gave direct evidence in court of the defendant kissing her neck and licking her torso on one occasion, while during another occasion he touched her thigh and vagina. The woman, now aged 20, told the court that the offences took place in the sitting room of the house and that she thought the offences continued over one or two years when she was in primary school but that she couldn’t remember.
Judge Eugene O’Kelly heard that the defendant stopped going to visit his father when he was around 15 years’ old because he no longer got on with him and that the injured party became disruptive as she grew into a teenager, refusing to go to school and not getting on with her mother.
Judge O’Kelly heard that the injured party was referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services when she was a teenager because of her behaviour and that it was during one of her sessions that she told them of the abuse by her step-brother.
Under cross-examination by John Peart SC, instructed by solicitor John O’Sullivan for the defendant, the woman denied always looking to be the centre of attention when she was a child, while also denying pulling up her clothes and exposing herself to her step-brother.
When it was put to her by Mr Peart that she was a “provocative child” who grew into a bold teenager, she denied that she was and, at one point during the cross-examination she got upset, so Judge O’Kelly adjourned the case for a short recess.
Several witnesses were called, including the woman’s sister and mother, who said that they did not recall her pulling up her clothes or running around with very few clothes on.
The defendant also gave direct evidence in which he denied touching his step-sister. He said that sometimes she would annoy him by pulling his hair and that he would retaliate by tickling her and pulling at her clothes, “like normal kids’ stuff”.
He continued that she was always looking for attention when she was a child and that she would pull up her top and pull down her trousers in front of him and that she seemed “sexualised at a young age”.
He also said that he was “fully certain” that he had never touched her vagina but that he did pull at her clothes when they were playing, and that at the time, “the question of right and wrong did not come into it”. He told the jury that “looking back, it seems a bit weird” but, at the time, “he was a child” and did not overstep any boundaries.
When her allegation of sexually touching her was put to him by state prosecutor Niall Storan, he said it was “absolutely false” and that “100 million percent” he did not sexually assault her. When asked why a young girl would make up such a thing, he replied: “Who knows what goes on in other people’s minds” and that “none of it happened”.
In his summing up of the case, Mr Storan told the jury that the defendant had given “a self-serving argument that it was child’s play”, to gain sympathy from the jury.
He said that, on the other hand, the injured party was a 20-year-old young woman who had to give evidence in front of a jury of 12 people and that she had no reason to do that, other than it was true what he had done to her. Mr Storan continued that her evidence was “compelling” and that it stood up to scrutiny, as opposed to the defendant’s evidence, which was “manufactured”.
Mr Peart, for the defence, told the jury that there was very little real evidence in the case and that “anyone can make an allegation” and that the “more vivid and lurid the details”, the truer it would appear.
He also pointed out that the offences occurred 15 years ago and that “it was easy to make allegations that were difficult to defend” because there were no witnesses to the offences.
Judge O’Kelly told the jury that they must look at all of the evidence to ensure that it was beyond reasonable doubt. He told them to take into consideration the “demeanour” of the defendant and to use their common sense when reaching a conclusion.
He told them that “the passage of time may affect memories” and that they should take into consideration “a child’s recollection of events as opposed to an adult’s”.
He also told them that the age of criminality for sexual offences in Ireland was 12 years’ old and that with the charge of sexual assault, the prosecution did not have to prove injury or violence, but rather that it was intentional and non-consensual touching.
The jury found the defendant guilty on both counts on a majority verdict of 11 to one.
The defendant was remanded on continuing bail until the next circuit court sessions in May, when he will be sentenced.
Judge O’Kelly also ordered a probation report on the defendant and a victim impact statement for the defendant to be placed on the sexual offenders’ register.
