Defence claims abuse evidence 'fundamentally problematic' in family abuse trial
Eimear Dodd
Defence counsel for two men accused of familial abuse have suggested to a Central Criminal Court jury that the evidence of the primary complainant is contradictory.
Six men, aged between 32 and 55, face a combined total of 20 charges, 16 of which pertain to the main complainant, who is deaf. They are her three uncles and her three younger brothers.
One of these brothers (Accused C) is charged with four counts pertaining to the sexual abuse of two other sisters. All men have denied all of the charges against them.
The abuse is alleged to have occurred over a 19-year period between 1995 and 2014. None of the parties involved can be named for legal reasons.
On Thursday, the jury started to hear closing speeches on behalf of the accused men.
Michael Hourigan, defending Accused A, submitted to jurors in his closing speech that when they drill down into the evidence, it is “fundamentally problematic”.
Accused A (55) has denied a single count of raping the main complainant on a date between December 2009 and April 2011.
Hourigan submitted that the woman’s account of the alleged rape by his client has “changed and shifted”.
“What you are seeing is an evolution of the account she has given,” he said, suggesting that additional features about the incident emerged when the woman gave her evidence.
He asked jurors to assess the evidence, giving as an example that the woman told gardaí in 2021 that she had not been drinking when this alleged incident occurred, and her evidence during the trial was that she was drunk. He submitted to jurors that the prosecution had not sought to clarify ambiguities in the woman’s account.
He noted that no allegation against his client was made when the woman first spoke to the gardaí in 2017.
Mr Hourigan noted that the prosecution, while closing their case, described the interviews by gardaí with the primary complainant in 2017 as “flawed”. He said it is agreed that there were difficulties with that process and suggested jurors were not told how these issues related to the fact that the woman did not name his client.
He noted that the woman’s nine interviews with gardaí in 2021 underpinned the prosecution and that she made an allegation against his client for the first time during the sixth one. He submitted that there were also flaws with the process used in 2021.
Mr Hourigan said the woman made an allegation against another man [who is not on trial] during this interview, which is “strikingly similar” to the allegation against his client. He suggested the woman may be confusing these two events.
He noted that the prosecution referred to his client’s garda interviews where he said that the primary complainant told him and his sister that she had been abused by her stepfather [who is not on trial and died last year]. Accused A told gardaí that he told his sister to tell the girl’s mother.
Mr Hourigan submitted it was “telling” this was the only reference to his client’s interviews in the prosecution closing speech. His client was “unambiguous and vehement” in his denials of the allegation when interviewed by gardaí, counsel said.
He noted that the prosecution made a “global comment” in closing about the accused distancing themselves from the woman and said the distancing “was not there” in his client’s garda interviews. His client told gardaí that he spent time with his niece and went for drinks with her while remaining “steadfast” in his denial of the allegation, counsel noted.
Mr Hourigan suggested there are “multiple doubts” within the evidence, which he submitted on analysis would lead to a conclusion of a not guilty verdict.
In his closing speech on behalf of Accused E, Roderick O’Hanlon, submitted that there are contradictions in the woman’s evidence. He told the jury that his client denies the allegations and says they are untrue.
Accused E (32) is accused of two counts of anal rape of the main complainant between 2007 and 2009.
Mr O’Hanlon submitted that some of the woman’s evidence defies common sense. He noted the woman claimed during the trial that she was raped when she was five by a younger boy, who is no longer before the court.
He suggested this undermines the reliability of the woman’s evidence and later described some of her assertions as “extraordinary” and fragile.
Mr O’Hanlon asked them to consider how children in a large family might interact with each other, noting the woman’s evidence was that she did not play with his client, who is around four years younger than her, when they were young.
He told jurors they must only consider the evidence in relation to his client when deliberating. He noted that his client went to live with other relatives, returning to the family home around the time these allegations refer to, before moving out again.
Mr O’Hanlon submitted that there is also a contradiction in the evidence about whether the primary complainant was living in the family home around that time or with other relatives.
He asked the jury to consider the woman’s evidence that these incidents involving his client occurred when the family home was empty. He suggested this was a busy house full of children and asked jurors to use their common sense to assess this.
The trial continues before Justice Caroline Biggs and a jury.
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can call the national 24-hour Rape Crisis Helpline at 1800-77 8888, access text service and webchat options at drcc.ie/services/helpline/ or visit Rape Crisis Help. In the case of an emergency, always dial 999/112.
