Uncle sexually assaulted his nephew who didn’t want to see him jailed
THE victim of a sexual assault by his uncle has said he didn’t wish for him to go to prison.
The defendant, a 58-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to one count of sexually assaulting his nephew who was then aged between 12 and 14, at a house in County Sligo, between 1991 and 1993.
Sligo Circuit Criminal Court heard that on a date unknown, the accused, who was aged 29 or 31 was babysitting his nephew, which he had done on a number of occasions previously.
The victim was asleep in bed when his uncle entered the room, pushed the duvet to one side, pulled down his nephew’s pyjama bottoms and masturbated him.
The man pulled the covers over him after and did not ask him to keep it to himself.
In his victim impact statement, the victim said he lost all respect for an adult member of his family who was there to protect him.
He struggled to tell anyone and put it to the back of his mind and tried to forget about it. He told his wife in 2017 and later told his parents. He acknowledged the fallout for his family and said he lost contact with some of his extended family as a result of the case.
“I’ ll never know how life would have turned out, but I know it wouldn’t have been helped by the abuse by my uncle,” the statement detailed. He said the guilty plea by his uncle had brought him release and closure and that he had no desire to see his uncle go to prison.
State prosecutor Mr Leo Mulrooney, BL, instructed by State solicitor Ms Elisa McHugh, outlined that the man was interviewed on January 9 th, 2019 and later entered a guilty plea to the offence. When the offence was first put to him he indicated he wanted to speak to a solicitor.
Det Garda Joe Scanlon was asked by defence barrister, Ms Eileen O’Leary, SC, if her client was courteous throughout the investigation, and the detective agreed he had been.
Ms O’Leary said her client was married and in a ‘ happy and stable relationship’. She said the man was ‘industrious’ and a ‘family man’. She said he had suffered from bouts of depression and he had been raped in his early teens.
Ms O’Leary described the assault as a one off incident. She said there had been no grooming and there was no penetration. She referred to the victim’s statement of the offence which detailed that the assault did not last very long. She mentioned that the guilty plea by her client was a source of closure to the victim and that he had expressed he did not want his uncle to go to prison.
In mitigation, Ms O’Leary said the early plea had saved the victim the ordeal of a trial for the historic offence and he was not at any risk of re offending. She said he was very remorseful. She said a custodial sentence would be particularly hard for her client and he poses no risk to society.
The 58 year old took the stand and made an apology to the victim who was not present in court, however his wife was in attendance. He said he apologised for what he had done and wished his nephew the best in the future.
Judge Francis Comerford noted that the man had been described as industrious and said there had been no mention of compensation by the defence.
The judge said even if the victim did not wish to accept compensation it could be nominated to a charity, or charities of his choice.
After discussing with her client, Ms O’Leary indicated to the court that €10,000 could be made available for compensation but was not mentioned previously as her client assumed the victim would not accept the monies, and also because he did not want it to look like he was buying his way out of the matter.
The court was told the victim did not wish to accept the money, but instead nominated two charities for the monies to be divided between, €5,000 to Sligo Rape Crisis Centre and, €5,000 to Bumbleance, a children’s interactive ambulance service purposefully designed for children.
In relation to previous details given by the defence, Mr Mulrooney told the court the detail that the defendant had been sexually assaulted himself as a teen was the first mention of such and said it was not ‘an accepted or agreed fact’.
Judge Comerford said it was not a case where someone could avoid prison for a ‘ heinous crime’ by paying money.
“No amount of money makes up for what was done to a child, just before his early teens. Any sum will always be far too little,” said the judge.
He said the accused was putting forward money and the court was accepting that.
The judge said children needed to be protected and that the age of 12 or 14 was a difficult time for a young man who was still a child.
“It’s obvious that harm would be done, and can never be undone.
“Children look to family to protect them from the world and when harm is done by an adult family member that heightens the offence.”
The judge said as it was not simply touching, and therefore the offence was placed at a higher range.
Judge Comerford said if the accused as himself assaulted as a teen that did go towards some sense of culpability.
However, he also said if this was true, the accused should know the seriousness of the offence and its effects.
The judge acknowledged there was no overt coercion, process of grooming or threat to keep silent which was often a feature of these types of assault.
In arriving at a sentence, the judge indicated a headline sentence of 18 months in prison for the offence and said one dominant mitigating factor was the guilty plea.
“The guilty plea is important, the good it does to the victim that it [the offence] is acknowledged. It is admission to the victim that this was done.”
He noted that the guilty plea was also important as sometimes proving cases such as this were difficult to secure a conviction due to the passage of time.
The judge described the victim impact statement as ‘very dignified’ and said the victim was conscious of the effects on other people over the effects on himself.
Judge Comerford outlined that though the victim did not wish the sibling of one of his parents to go to prison, it was not a wish that could override the court’s decision.
The judge however did say it was appropriate not to impose an immediate custodial sentence. He said the gesture of €10,000 would now help people who have been the victim of sexual offences, and help children who needed support.
He added that the payment of money was by no way being paid to avoid prison and sentenced the man to an 18 month suspended prison sentence for a period of 18 months providing he keeps the peace and is of good behaviour.
An order was made that the €10,000 be lodged to court within six weeks from the court date, and if not, a fine of €20,000 would be imposed.
The €10,000 will be split between the above mentioned charities and the 58 year old will be entered on to the sex offenders register.