Court has 'no hesitation' in dismissing Mayo man's appeal to set aside sex abuse conviction
A Mayo man has failed in a bid to have his conviction set aside for sexually abusing three sisters of a neighbouring family over an 18-year period.
The man, who cannot be named to protect the anonymity of the victims, began abusing the girls when they were aged between nine and 12 years old, with the abuse starting in 1976 and the last incidence occurring in 1994.
The majority of the counts related to offences against one girl. The court heard that on one occasion the man produced an adult magazine, grabbed this girl and forced her to masturbate him while penetrating her with his fingers.
The abuse lasted until she was 16 years old and involved instances of the man forcing the girl to masturbate him, digitally penetrating her and forcibly performing oral intercourse on her.
When this girl’s older sister was aged between 10 and 12 years old in the late 1970s, the man grabbed her from behind and digitally penetrated her. The girl slapped him across the face and told him never to do it again.
The abuse relating to the youngest sister occurred at a family function in 1994 when she was approximately 12 years old. The man again grabbed her, put his hand up her skirt and digitally penetrated her.
The court heard that the now 65-year-old man was related to the girl’s family and lived just yards from their home.
On October 19, 2017, the man was found guilty by a Mayo Circuit Criminal Court jury on 19 counts of indecent assault against one girl and one count of indecent assault against each of her two sisters. He had denied all of the charges over the course of his seven-day trial.
Eight days later concurrent prison sentences totalling seven years were imposed by Judge Rory McCabe .
Counsel for the appellant, Mr Mark Nicholas SC, had told the court that he would focus the appeal on the grounds of the trial judge’s failure to sever the indictment, which allowed the three set of complaints to go before the jury at the same time.
He said that at the outset of the trial before a plea was entered, the man’s lawyers sought to have the indictment severed in relation to the counts concerning two of the complainants, on the basis that they could prejudice the jury’s consideration of the case against the man in relation to the other sister.
Counsel submitted that although there was clearly “similar fact” type evidence across the complaints, they did not disclose a system of abuse with the “striking similarities” needed to allow the three cases to be heard together.
Mr Patrick Reynolds BL, for the DPP, told the court that there were “great similarities” in the complaints, including the similar age of the victims and their familial connection, while in two cases the offending took place at the same location.
He submitted that there were additional similarities in the complaints that were more specific, such as the method of the abuse and the particular way the victims were held.
Mr Reynolds argued that the difference in the location of the offence relating to the youngest girl was not a significant factor that warranted the severance of the indictment, as it occurred at a function where the families of the man and his victim had been brought together.
Mr Reynolds said that any dissimilarities in the complaints were insufficient to warrant a determination that there was not a system of offending in place or to warrant severance of the indictment.
In a judgement delivered electronically this morning, Mr Justice John Edwards said the appeal court had “no hesitation” in concluding that the trial judge was correct in refusing to sever the indictment.
He said that in the court’s assessment, as well as some differences there were “striking similarities between the complaints”.
Mr Justice Edwards, sitting with Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, said the court was satisfied that no error had been demonstrated with respect to the trial judge’s decision and would accordingly dismiss the appeal.
