No verdict in case of man charged with sexual assault of teen
MAN ACCUSED OF THE SEXUAL ASSAULT OF HIS WIFE’S DAUGHTER FACES A RE-TRIAL AFTER A JURY FAILED TO REACH A VERDICT FOLLOWING A FOUR DAY TRIAL AT THE CIRCUIT COURT IN SLIGO.
The jury in a trial of a man accused of sexually assaulting a then 16-year-old girl at a house in County Sligo has failed to reach a verdict in the matter.
After five hours and four minutes of deliberations, the four women and eight men told Judge Francis Comerford last Friday they could not reach a majority verdict.
The man who cannot be named for legal reasons pleaded not guilty to sexual assault on a date unknown between November 1st, 2016 and December 6 th, 2016, and not guilty to a second charge of sexual assault on January 12 th, 2017.
Judge Comerford thanked the jury for their service and the matter was put back awaiting future direction from the DPP to decide on the matter of a retrial before a new jury. The defendant was remanded on bail.
During the trial in evidence given via video link, the complainant said she was approximately six or seven years old when the defendant started a relationship with her mother.
She said she did not feel that comfortable around the defendant and referred to two alleged incidents, one in which the defendant came into her room and asked if she ever thought about sex or masturbated. She said she was 13 at the time.
She said on another occasion aged 13 also, he came into the changing room of a shop with her in Dublin.
Giving her evidence in relation to the first alleged offence, the woman told the jury the defendant had suggested they have a ‘movie night’ and they watched a film on Netflix, ‘Brooklyn’. She said her mother was not at home and her sibling was in bed.
She said she went downstairs in her pyjamas and the defendant had bought her two cans of Smirnoff Ice. She was sitting on the right side of the couch beside the defendant who asked her to lie beside him. She said she told him she preferred to sit up, but eventually lay down beside him after he asked a number of times.
She said the defendant then moved his hand up and down under her top and his hand went to the bottom of one of her breasts. She said after this she went to the bathroom and that when she returned to the room he apologised and said he did not mean to do it and asked her to sit beside him again. She said he put his arm around her and she lay on his chest.
The complainant said the defendant went out to take a call from her mother and returned a time later and again asked her to sit beside him a number of times.
She said he ‘ snapped’ and said, ‘ We never spend any time together, can you not just do this for me’ and she then put her head on his lap.
Giving evidence in relation to the second alleged assault on January 12, 2017, the woman told the court she got up for school that morning and it had been snowing.
She said the defendant text her ‘come up’ and she went upstairs to his bedroom and he asked her if she wanted the day off school and she said she did. She then said he asked her to get into the bed and after refusing a number of times she got into the bed.
In her evidence she said they were facing each other and the defendant had his hands around her moving his hands up and down her back and he put his hands on her buttocks inside her underwear.
She told the court the defendant said, ‘I love cuddling you’ and asked if she would take her top off for him. She said she sat up to try and get out of the bed and he grabbed her wrist and said he was sorry and that he should not have said that. She lay back down on his chest for a few minutes and when she got out of the bed she realised he was naked.
In cross examination, defence barrister Colm Smyth SC (instructed by Seamus Monaghan, solicitor) put it to the complainant that she did not like the accused ‘from the very beginning’, to which she replied, ‘Yes’.
Asked if she would be happier if he wasn’t in her life, she said, ‘I’m not sure how to answer that’.
Mr Smyth put it to the woman that his client did not lie with her on the couch and said it was his instructions that his client has back pain and always sits on the right hand side of the couch. The woman agreed that the man usually sat on the right of the couch but on the night in question he was not sitting there.
The defence barrister put it to her that she never liked the man and was never really close to him and questioned why then she would lie down on a couch with him.
“He asked me multiple times, when someone in charge asks...he was married to my Mam, I did it,” she said.
Mr Smyth put it to her that his client would say she would not take instructions or orders from him such as in relation to household chores and asked her if she always obeyed him.
“No, I didn’t always do what he said.”
In cross examination in relation to the alleged offence of January 12 th, 2017, Mr Smyth asked if the woman had made an additional statement to clarify if the accused touched her ‘ bare skin’. She clarified that gardaí approached her in July of this year to make a supplementary statement.
Questioned about the length of time she was in bed with the defendant on the morning of January 12 th, the complainant said 25 to 30 minutes.
Mr Smyth put it to her that it could not have happened as his client had to wash, dress and clear snow from his car before going to work.
“That is just impossible, he never spent 25 minutes in bed,” said Mr Smyth.
The woman said the period of time was ‘an estimate’ and added that it never took the man too long to get ready for work.
Referring to a text exchange between her and the defendant later that morning, Mr Smyth said his client text; ‘Are ye ok, what time did [sibling] get up at’ and she replied, ‘Half nine, we’re fine’.
Mr Smyth questioned how the exchange was so normal considering what was alleged to have taken place. The woman said she was trying to act normal and had been in shock.
It was suggested to her that she could have replied addressing what allegedly happened, the complainant said she did not feel she could.
On the issue of the defendant buying alcohol on the first alleged assault, Mr Smyth put it to her that his client was not a ‘drinking man’ and she agreed he was not and she agreed that he would not go to the off licence usually. She said he bought the drink without her knowing.
“Your step father didn’t assault you, physically abuse you, touch your breast or buttocks,” said Mr Smyth.
“He did touch me, everything I said is true,” she replied.
Mr Smyth put it to her that she had achieved in getting the defendant removed from her home.
She said though he was now out of her life, it was not something she was trying to achieve.
The mother of the complainant gave evidence that on the morning of January 12 th, 2017 she rang her husband before 8am about the road conditions and rang a second time at approximately 8.10am to say she had reached work.
Taking the stand, the defendant was asked about two alleged incidents the complainant had mentioned to the gardaí while making her statement, one relating to a talk about sex and the other about a changing room in Dublin.
The defendant denied either of these incidents took place and denied that he invited the complainant to lie beside him on the couch on the night of the first alleged assault and said the second alleged incident never happened.
In relation to January 12 th, 2017 he told the court his wife rang at 7.45am to say she had a skid on the road and that he had asked her to come back to the house so she could drive her. He said the conversation lasted 4-5 minutes and after, he text the complainant to come upstairs. He said to the complainant, ‘I suppose you want the day off school’. He told the jury that his wife rang at approximately 8.10am and after this call he got ready for work, swept snow off his car and made coffee, while checking the news and weather on his phone at 8.25am. He said he left the house to go to work at 8.36am.
Asked why the complainant would allege assaults took place, the defendant said, ‘She obviously wanted me out of the house’
He said he never touched the complainant’s breast and asked if he put his hands inside her pyjamas he replied, ‘Never, I did not touch her’.
In cross examination by Prosecution for the State, Mr Leo Mulrooney, the defendant again denied having a conversation with the complainant about sex and said he could not recall being in the shop in Dublin in 2013.
The defendant told the jury he suggested the movie night because the relationship which he and the complainant had was strained and his wife said he needed to make more of an effort.
He denied giving her alcohol and putting his hands under her clothes
Asked by Mr Mulrooney if he regretted inviting the complainant to his room while he was naked, the defendant said it was not an invitation into the room and said the complainant was present for 3 to 4 minutes and the blanket covered him up to his neck.
It was put to him that this was enough time for an assault to take place, which he denied. It was also put to him that at some stage he had the complainant in bed. He replied, ‘ That’s incorrect, it didn’t happen, I didn’t do it’.
On the second day of deliberations the jury were directed to reach a majority verdict, however, when this was not reached and there was a disagreement on both charges the jury were discharged from their duty.