Man found not guilty of sexually assaulting a minor

A NORTH Wicklow man was found not guilty of sexually assaulting a minor at Wicklow Circuit Court last Friday.

The man, who was 31 at the time of the allegation, was accused of kissing a 14-year-old girl and having sex with her on three different occasions during the latter part of 2005.

The man was known to the girl through a relative of hers.

The pair had a relationship spanning some months, the girl, now in her 20s, said in evidence.

The complainant said that the contact started with a game of ‘jocking’. She said he was discreetly touching her leg in a car on one occasion, while his partner was travelling in the same vehicle. The kissing occurred in a car, she said, when he was driving her home, took a wrong turn, and parked. Then things escalated to more serious matters, she told the court, twice in cars and once in a shed.

Wicklow Circuit Court heard that the girl was provided with a phone by the defendant. The girl also said that they had gone to a hotel in Northern Ireland and had been together in a hotel room on a family holiday to France. Those events occurred after she had turned 15 and there were no charges before the court relating to them.

The defendant denied all accusations.

His defence barrister also said that even if the jury believed a relationship had taken place, the complainant had not been definite about the dates on which the supposed allegations occurred.

State prosecutor James Kelly said that there are rarely witnesses to offenses of a sexual nature. They are committed in privacy or seclusion, so the jury had to rely on the evidence of the complainant. He said that what the defendant had done was ‘morally wrong, repugnant and criminal’.

A barrister for the defendant told the jury that they must find reasonable doubt. He said that any incidents in 2006, if they were to be believed, could not prove any alleged wrongdoing the previous year. He said that they couldn’t use the logic ‘ because he was a bit sleazy in 2006, it’s more easy to believe that he is guilty of crimes allegedly committed in 2005’.

He said that the jury had to be satisfied that, if they believed the allegations, they happened in 2005 rather than 2006 when no crime would have occurred, even if the man’s behaviour was irresponsible and immature.

‘If you have any doubts regarding the dates, you have no option but to acquit,’ he said.