'Exorcism' father loses second appeal over cruelty to daughter

High Court Reporters

A father who took part with his wife in "exorcism" beatings and cruelty to his nine-year-old daughter, who was later left with a catastrophic brain injury, has failed in a second appeal against his conviction and imprisonment.

The Supreme Court ruled that a jury verdict in 2021, finding the father guilty of two counts of assault causing serious harm and three counts of child cruelty, should be upheld. The father, and the mother, who was also convicted of the same counts, were both jailed for 14 years.

The father appealed his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the conviction while reducing the 14-year sentence he received to 13 years.

The parents' trial heard that the girl was punched, beaten with a belt and a stick, choked, bitten and badly burned all over her body between June 28th and July 2nd, 2019.

The girl, along with another sister, had arrived in Ireland the previous March to join the family, who are originally from North Africa.

The court heard the parents believed their daughter was possessed by a devil or “jinn” and had taken steps to attempt to exorcise her.

The trial also heard that while the father had participated in injuring and choking the child, there was no evidence he was present when the brain injury was inflicted on her by the mother on July 2nd, 2019, as he was at work from early that morning.

In his CoA appeal, it was argued that his absence from the home, and the fact that he was not told for some time that day about the incident, excluded the possibility that he could have altered the outcome of the brain injury by calling an ambulance.

It was argued his actions did not come within the definition of "joint enterprise" in a criminal offence. This was rejected by the CoA.

In his further appeal to a five-judge Supreme Court, the central point was whether he was responsible for the actions of his wife in inflicting the brain injury and whether there was sufficient evidence before the jury to enable them to come to the conclusion of guilt on that count and on a count relating to burning the child.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton, in a decision on behalf of the Supreme Court, said the court was asked to decide whether the absence of the father from the scene of the serious attack upon his daughter by his wife on July 2 undermined his conviction for the crime of assault causing serious harm.

The essential issue was could he be found responsible for that crime by reason of his participation in a series of assaults immediately before that event on the basis of a plan common to both husband and wife, the judge said.

"Shortly put, the answer is affirmative," he said. He said there was no reason for disturbing the verdict of the jury, and he dismissed the appeal.