A man whose daughter had a baby by him has been jailed for nine years by the Central Criminal Court for incest. The 61-year-old defendant from Waterford pleaded guilty to five charges of having unlawful carnal knowledge of his daughter on dates from June 1975, when she was 11 years old, to December 1985. Originally he faced a total of 46 charges.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said she found it disturbing to read in a report before her that he appeared to be trying to blame his daughter by suggesting she flaunted herself naked at him when she came home from dances.
"To say he was merely lacking insight into his offending is being kind to say the least," she said'. "Both the probation officer and the psychiatrist felt he considers himself a victim as much as his daughter, but he is not a victim."
She jailed him for nine years each on two charges and four years each on three counts. All the sentences are to run concurrently. The judge fixed October 20th, 1999, to review the sentence.
Insp Michael Blake said the victim was called "daddy's mistress" and "daddy's girl" by her mother when she tried to confide in her what he was doing. Her sisters were also unhelpful, although the victim might not have given them the full details.
The sex abuse was hidden because she was afraid to tell anyone else and continued for 10 years. It stopped after the baby he fathered was born because she would not let him continue.
Insp Blake told Mr Maurice Gaffney SC, prosecuting, that the victim first confided in her husband several years later and the investigation which led to her father's guilty pleas was begun. She has been under counselling since then.
Her father at first denied the allegations of frequent sexual intercourse with his daughter but eventually admitted to having sex with her when she was about 18. The family was divided over the matter, with most' of her siblings siding with their father.
Insp Blake said the abuse happened in the house, in a shed and in the car. Some offences happened when most of the family were at Mass and the victim would be looking after a younger child. He would come home with sweets for the infant and sexually abuse the victim, who did not properly know the facts of life until she was nearly 20.
Mr Patrick Gageby SC, defending, said the defendant did not deserve any sympathy. However, he had not assaulted younger daughters when stopped by the victim, unlike in other similar cases. His client had pleaded guilty and so vindicated the victim making the allegations. His client was "genuinely sorry", even though it might not seem that way from the reports.
Mrs Justice McGuinness said the victim's description of what was done to her was very moving. She had been devastated by her fathers actions over so many years. The victim impact report made very difficult reading and it looked like it would take a considerable time for her to come back to an even keel.
The sentence review date, she "said, would give the defendant sufficient time to express his sorrow and to encourage his daughters into a reconciliation.