Courts

Mother and partner jailed for rape and sexual assault of daughter (5) and son (3) to remain in jail

The 41-year-old woman and 53-year-old man had denied a number of offences and appealed the sentence

In the judgement delivered today, Ms Justice Burns said that while the length of delay in this case was 'truly shocking' the court was of the view that delay 'in and of itself' was not a sufficient reason to halt a criminal trial.

Fiona Magennis
Fri Jun 14 2024 - 16:42

A woman and her partner jailed for a combined 33 years for the rape and sexual abuse of her five-year-old daughter and three-and-a-half-year-old son are to remain behind bars after their convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal.

However, in delivering the ruling on behalf of the three-judge court on Friday, Ms Justice Tara Burns said that the eight-year delay between the investigation and trial phases of the case was “truly shocking”. She added that all of the authorities dealing with child sex cases, including the guards, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts, “must make better efforts to ensure that cases are dealt with expeditiously”.

Ms Justice Burns said that none of the grounds of appeal pursued at hearing could be upheld.

The 41-year-old woman and 53-year-old man had denied a number of offences of rape, oral rape, sexual assault, sexual exploitation, reckless endangerment and false imprisonment of the children at two locations in Connacht on dates between October 2012 and September 2014.

READ MORE

The two cannot be named in order to protect the identities of the two children. Both the man and the woman were found guilty at the Central Criminal Court in November 2022.

At the Court of Appeal in April Michael Lynn SC, for the man, submitted that there had been a “unique” delay of over eight years between the children’s recorded interviews with specialist gardaí in 2016 and when the case went to trial in October 2022. He said this amounted to an unfairness to his client.

Mr Lynn said the children had little or no recollection of the interviews that they had given to gardaí eight years before the trial.

Dominic McGinn SC, for the woman, said the girl complainant had “expressly said she could not remember” giving the initial interviews.

In the judgment delivered today, Ms Justice Burns said that while the length of delay in this case was “truly shocking” the court was of the view that delay “in and of itself” was not a sufficient reason to halt a criminal trial.

She said all of the authorities dealing with child sex cases, including the guards, the DPP and the courts, must make better efforts to ensure that these cases are dealt with expeditiously.

“A different mindset and different procedures must be devised to deal with these cases in an appropriately speedy fashion,” she said.

However, the judge said failure to do so does not mean that a trial will not proceed.

Mr Lynn had also argued at the appeal hearing that the interviews should not have been permitted to enter the trial because of the use of what he submitted were leading or suggestive questions in interviewing the children, who had learning difficulties.

Ms Justice Burns said that while some leading questions in relation to matters previously disclosed by the injured parties were asked, the purpose of so asking was to introduce these matters into the conversation so as to then have the injured parties detail these events.

“We agree with the trial judge that these interviews were conducted with immense skill, professionalism, patience and care, demonstrating an understanding of child witnesses and how best to help them tell their story,” she said.

She said the court found the trial judge did not err in deeming them admissible.

Mr Lynn had also submitted during the appeal hearing that there was an issue for the defence in assessing whether or not the competence of the two children as witnesses could be tested.

In relation to the cross examination open to the defence, he said there was “very limited opportunity to assess whether or not the children were competent complainants at the time of the interviews.”

Ms Justice Burns said the court found this argument had “no foundation”, adding that the question of competency arises when evidence is being given.

“There is simply no evidential basis for suggesting that had there not been a delay in getting this matter on for trial, an issue would have arisen at the cross-examination stage in relation to the injured parties’ competency,” she said.

Ms Justice Burns said the judge had viewed the interviews, considered the intermediaries reports and considered the relevant law relating to the question of competency. Having considered these relevant matters, the question of whether the injured parties were competent to give evidence was a determination which was within the trial judge’s discretion to make.

She said the court agreed the trial judge that while the interviews were disjointed and the injured parties could be distracted, each was capable of giving an account which “clearly reveals that they understand the questions asked of them and are capable of giving understandable answers to the questions relating to sexual acts”.

LATEST STORIES