The Supreme Court has quashed an acquittal and ordered a retrial of a woman charged with sexual abuse and neglect of her three children, finding that the interests of justice required the charges to be tried after evidence of alleged admissions was wrongly excluded.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Brian Murray on 14 December 2023, followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the trial judge had erred in excluding statements the woman allegedly made to a clinical psychologist. The prosecution appealed under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010, which permits an exceptional appeal against an acquittal in specified circumstances.
The woman faced five counts concerning alleged offences between 1 January 2005 and 25 March 2015: four counts of sexual assault and one count of causing, procuring or allowing a child in her custody to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or exposed to likely suffering or injury. The alleged victims are her three sons, identified in the judgment only as A, B and C.
The statements were allegedly made during five interviews in August and September 2015. They took place as part of a risk and safety assessment concerning two of the woman’s adult sons in related High Court care and welfare proceedings. The Supreme Court said the trial judge’s exclusion of the alleged admissions led the prosecution not to oppose a no-case submission. The jury was then directed to find the woman not guilty on all five counts.
The Court said that finding the excluded evidence compelling and the trial judge’s ruling erroneous did not, by themselves, require a retrial. It had to decide whether a retrial was in the interests of justice, considering fairness, the time elapsed, the interests of any victim and other relevant circumstances.
The woman’s counsel relied on the age of the allegations, the years spent in the court process, the stress of proceedings and the woman’s limited access to her children. The Court acknowledged the passage of time and those circumstances. It concluded, however, that there was no defined prejudice to the woman’s defence that displaced the strong public interest in having the grave allegations tried. The alleged victims would not give evidence; the prosecution evidence at issue consisted of video recordings and transcripts, and the psychologist could give evidence and be cross-examined.
The Court therefore made the orders sought, quashing the acquittal and directing a retrial. The judgment decides the appeal and the retrial question only; it does not determine the woman’s guilt or the truth of the allegations.