Over 80 charges withdrawn in long-running family sex abuse trial

Isabel Hayes

The majority of allegations against six men accused of sexually abusing their female relative have been withdrawn, and a seventh man is no longer on trial, a Central Criminal Court jury has heard.

Nearly eight months after the trial opened in October last year, prosecuting barrister Roisin Lacey started her closing speech to the jury on Tuesday.

She told the 13 jurors they were “participants in making a little bit of history”, with this case believed to be one of the longest jury trials in the history of the State.

Shortly before this, the jury was told by Justice Caroline Biggs that after “extensive legal argument”, a number of the charges against six of the men have been withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), while all charges against the seventh man had been withdrawn.

The men were originally charged with a combined total of 103 charges against them – most of which pertained to the main complainant, who is deaf.

On Tuesday, six of the men, aged between 32 and 55, were re-arraigned on a combined total of 20 charges – 16 of which pertain to the main complainant. 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 and none of the parties involved can be named for legal reasons.

The jury was told that all charges against the seventh man were withdrawn. This man, known as Accused D in reporting the case, is the woman's 33-year-old brother and was originally facing 22 charges.

The jury was told that some of the counts had been amended to change dates and locations, with the abuse now alleged to have occurred over a 19-year period between 1995 and 2014.

In her closing speech, Lacey told the jury that back in October, the men had been arraigned on a “lot more” counts, but she said it was not unusual for changes to be made to an indictment, particularly in cases involving historic allegations.

She said the amendments had been made to “more accurately reflect the evidence given in the context of this trial”.

The jury was told that complainants frequently find it difficult to recollect allegations from years ago “with a degree of specificity” and that the main complainant in particular was subjected to “what might be called a litany of abuse at the hands of six individuals at differing and varying locations”.

Expanding on the difficulties faced by the main complainant, Lacey brought the jury through some of the expert witness evidence in which the jury was told the woman has a borderline learning disability and language deprivation.

This correlates to her ability to understand questions, especially around timelines, ages and chronological sequences, the jury was told. “That kind of language deprivation bears an even greater significance when dealing with historical allegations,” Lacey said.

As an example, prosecuting counsel referred to the date the complainant had the contraceptive bar put in her arm. Ms Lacey said the woman is “completely truthful” about getting the bar inserted but also “completely wrong” about the date, with the trial hearing independent medical evidence as to when she had the procedure.

Lacey submitted the jury should “focus perhaps more on the actual substantive allegations made by (the complainant) in relation to each of these accused and assess her credibility by virture of what she says happens with less emphasis on dates and age”.

She urged the jury to “look at her testimony in light of her language deficits”.

Referring to further expert witness evidence given at trial, Lacey said the complainant has “very limited English proficiency” with the court hearing evidence an interviewer “really had to pull the language out of her”.

The jury was told that when considering the complainant's evidence, they must consider her “language deficits, language deprivation, difficulty describing events and the abject inability (she) has to convey time”.

The prosecution closing speech continues on Wednesday.

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.