‘I knew my truth and I was believed’ - Victims speak out after man found guilty of historical sex abuse offences

By Darragh McCann, The Wicklow People

Victims in a historical sex abuse trial have spoken of their relief, after a jury found a man guilty of multiple offences committed against four women, two of whom were his sisters, over a period spanning more than two decades

The defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared at third and fourth day of his trial at Wicklow Circuit Criminal Court.

He initially entered pleas of not guilty to 41 counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault.

On day two of the trial, the court heard evidence from the accused’s sisters, Witness A and Witness B.

Witness A gave evidence about an incident where the accused came into her bedroom and asked her to play “horse”. She said that he proceeded to force her to lie on all fours on the bed before pulling up her nightdress and telling her “the horsey needs a tail”.

She told the court that the abuse continued for several years, with the final incident coming when she was 16, when she said the defendant put his penis between her legs and began thrusting back and forth, but did not ejaculate.

Last Friday, Witness B recalled that she was in her bedroom in a dressing gown when the accused asked her to practise for his girlfriend, before he got into her bed and touched her intimately.

In another alleged incident, she recalled the accused thrusting with his penis and ejaculating, but not placing his penis inside her until a later incident.

“I can remember the smell of sweat, body odour, Old Spice and Brut,” she remarked, adding: “He offered to pay me and he put a ten pence piece on my bedside locker.”

Both sisters later confided in each other, with one telling the court, “I told her that bastard abused me,” before the sibling informed her that he had also done the same thing to her.

On Tuesday, June 9, the court was expecting to hear evidence from witnesses C and D, but just before proceedings began, senior counsel for the defence, Vincent Heneghan, informed the court that his client was pleading guilty to two counts of sexual assault against both women.

He was re-arraigned in front of the jury, made up of eight men and four women, with him admitting that he did abuse Witness C at an address in Wicklow, and also sexually assaulted Witness D at the same address.

The brother of the accused testified that he recalled the accused being “an angry young man” during his youth.

The daughter of the accused stated that her father’s marriage broke down with her mother when she was aged five or six. She recalled Witness C being around the house quite a bit as a child.

She recalled an incident in which her father confided in her at a family party, when he was drunk, that he was abused as a child and had “done the same to his sisters”.

She told counsel for the prosecution, James Kelly, that her initial reaction was “shock”, due to her understanding of what her father had meant by his comments, but noted that “the topic wasn’t brought up again”.

On the final day, Detective Garda Suzanne Ford told the court that after arresting the defendant, who is in his mid-sixties, she interviewed him and, when asked if he had any sexual contact with his sisters, he denied it.

The accused was shown the statement his other sister had made about ejaculating on her stomach, he called it a “fabrication”, claiming she was an “attention seeker”.

When asked if he wanted to comment on the case, he referred to it as a “witch hunt”. A week later he gave a voluntary statement, in which he further denied the allegations.

During cross-examination, Mr Heneghan pointed out that his client gave the second statement on a voluntary basis and was not required to do so by law.

The court was informed by Judge Sinéad Ní Chúlacháin that charges one to four be nolled after legal argument by Mr Heneghan that “the evidence doesn’t support the charge”.

He added that his client wished further to plead guilty to over 10 counts of the indictment against Victim A.

Mr Kelly, in his closing address, reminded the jury that, while the accused had pleaded guilty to some counts on the indictment, they must still carefully consider the evidence in relation to the remaining charges before them and return verdicts based solely on that evidence.

He stated that just because the accused had entered guilty pleas, it did not mean the jury should disregard the evidence they had heard throughout the trial.

Mr Kelly submitted that the jury were entitled to evaluate all of the evidence before them, arguing that the alleged behaviour began when the complainants were young and escalated over time.

Referring to Victim A, counsel said the allegations dated back to 1974 and were said to have occurred regularly over a period of years.

He noted that it would have been impossible to draft the indictment in any way other than by using three-month periods due to the historical nature of the allegations.

Mr Kelly argued that the jury were entitled to assess the totality of the evidence when reaching their verdicts.

In his closing argument, Mr Heneghan, referred to the family home as a “modest house” and suggested that in such a small space others in the household may have heard something had the alleged incidents occurred.

He reminded the jury that, while they were aware the accused had pleaded guilty to certain offences, they must put that fact out of their minds when considering the remaining counts.

Counsel stated that the trial had involved difficult evidence which was “not easy to listen to” and expressed the hope that the complainants had been treated with respect during cross-examination.

He added that the purpose of the defence case was to contest the evidence before the court.

Judge Ní Chúlacháin, in her charge to the jury, reminded them that the accused had exercised his right not to give evidence and that no adverse inference could be drawn from that decision.

The judge stressed that the burden of proof rested entirely with the prosecution and that the standard required was proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

She told the jury that the standard did not require them to be “100 per cent” certain and that it was “not a mathematical probability”. However, they must nevertheless be convinced of the accused’s guilt to a high degree before returning guilty verdicts.

The jury returned after 51 minutes of deliberations with a verdict of guilty on all remaining charges, with the accused being remanded in custody and due back before the court on October 6 to fix a date for sentencing.

Speaking after the verdict, one of the victims said: “I feel relieved. It was very difficult.” Another victim added: “I don’t think you really can prepare yourself.”

Both emphasised the significance of the verdict, with one saying: “It’s very significant for us because he’s always denied it. I knew my truth and I told my truth, and I was believed.”

They both stated that they felt the public doesn’t fully understand what witnesses endure during a trial.

One victime advised others facing a similar process: “Keep going, just believe in yourself, tell your truth.” Another added: “There’s plenty of support out there.”

She noted that the process would have been easier if the accused had pleaded guilty earlier, especially for the children who had to testify.

Overall, they said their experience with the criminal justice system had been “absolutely fine”, but thanked Mr Kelly, the state solicitor Brian Robinson and Garda Ford.