High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Courts in recent years have been focusing more on victim impact than was traditional in the past. In this case the victim was failed when her cries for help were cruelly rebuffed by her parents in the first instance and then by a number of members of Raheny Garda Station including a Sergeant. What she says about her treatment at the hands of the Raheny guards is accepted as true by the Garda now responsible for bringing charges before this Court.

2. The effect of the rejection of the victims credible complaints has been that she was incestuously abused for a quarter of a century longer than was necessary, that she bore a child by her step brother, that she was incestuously abused while married, that she developed suicidal tendencies and that she was seriously intimidated and beaten. She says herself that she has not had a life.

3. It is not entirely clear at what age sexual abuse started but it was prior to the age of 12. She complained on two occasions to her parents and that resulted in her getting a hiding and being put out of the house. This was around the age of 12½. She went to Raheny Garda Station where one of the policemen to whom she complained apparently in the presence of a sergeant said "well, did you not enjoy that? Did you not feel good about all the fondling and what your brother was doing? You must have got something out of it." She left the police station crying.

4. In the light of what has happened in particular in relation to Raheny Garda Station some old law which still holds good requires to be restated. Where a credible complaint of felony is made to a policeman, he has no discretion under the Common Law not to investigate it and apprehend a named offender. A failure to carry out this duty vigorously constitutes an illegality on the policeman's part and renders him liable to prosecution on indictment.

5. This principle of the common law still holds good 110 years later.

6. It is an indictable offence at Common Law for a public officer wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification to neglect to perform a duty imposed on him eitherby Common Law or Statute. That this is so was most recently confirmed in R. -v- Dytham 1979 Q.B. p.722. The facts of the outrages perpetrated by the Accused have been set out in the evidence of Garda Frances Withero and I do not feel it necessary to repeat them.

7. I take account against the Accused of the following matters:

8. In favour of the Accused, I take account of:-

9. In respect of Count 8, I impose a sentence of 15 years penal servitude. So far as the incest offences are concerned, they were perpetrated at a time when the maximum penalty permitted by the punishment of Incest Act, 1908 was significantly lower than that provided for by the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act, 1995. I must impose sentence in accordance with the penalties which were provided for at the material time. In respect of Counts 1, 3 and 5, I impose a sentence of 5 years penal servitude.

10. In respect of Count 9, I impose a sentence of 3 years imprisonment. All these sentences are to run concurrently and in respect of each sentence I conditionally suspend the final month thereof to take account of time already spent in custody.