A mother (54) should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her three disabled children as she was subjected to an “extreme” imbalance of power when she made inculpatory statements to a psychologist and polygrapher, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Allowing her an appeal against her conviction, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said on Monday the only evidence against the woman were “inculpatory statements which she made in truly extraordinary circumstances”. He noted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was not opposing the appeal, and a retrial will not be sought.
The appellant had pleaded not guilty but was convicted by a jury, following a retrial in July 2024, of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - between January 1st, 2005, and March 25th, 2015. She was also convicted of one count of child neglect between August 3rd, 2008, and March 25th, 2015.
She was sentenced by Judge Catherine Staines to eight years, with the final two years suspended, but had remained on bail pending her appeal.
READ MORE
“One of the most heinous crimes is sexual abuse by a mother of her own children,” said Mr Justice O’Moore, adding the woman should never have been convicted. .
He said to add to the unusual nature of the case, the statements were made not to gardaí but to a psychologist and a polygrapher retained by Tusla.
“The manner in which [they] conducted certain parts of the final two days of interviews did not meet the standards one would expect, to put it mildly,” said Mr Justice O’Moore.
He said the woman was assessed and interviewed over five days in August 2015, before she made inculpatory statements on the final day.
In July 2021, she was tried before the Circuit Court, where the judge ruled admissions made ought to be excluded as they were not voluntary. The trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
The DPP appealed this, with the Court of Appeal ruling the admissions ought not to be excluded. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, with a retrial then taking place.
During the retrial, the psychologist accepted that statements made by the polygrapher could have been interpreted as inducements. The psychologist also accepted there was a risk the appellant may have made admissions to him on the basis she believed this was what he wanted.
The trial judge said she had serious concerns about the voluntariness of the admissions, but she ultimately ruled she was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and that the admissions made by the woman were admissible.
Mr Justice O’Moore said neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had available to it the revealing evidence of the psychologist given in the second trial.
“As these admissions constituted the only evidence against her, it follows that she should have been acquitted of all charges against her,” he said , ruling the court would allow the appeal.
