DPP will not oppose woman's appeal to quash conviction for sexually abusing her children

Sunday World

24-06-2025

The woman was convicted following a retrial in July 2024 of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons
The State has said it will not oppose an appeal by a 54-year-old woman to have her conviction for the sexual abuse and neglect of her disabled children quashed.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has also indicated that a retrial will not be sought.
The Court of Appeal heard that a psychologist who interviewed the woman accepted that alleged admissions she made may have resulted from "perceived inducements".
The psychologist carried out a number of interviews over five days, some of which included the use of a polygraph test, which formed the basis of the prosecution's case. The judge expressed reservations during the woman's second trial about the alleged admissions but felt bound by a Supreme Court decision which had found the interviews to be admissible.
In its decision, the Supreme Court had found that the manner of those interviews did not compel the admissions to be excluded. It further found that the polygraph test was not an "instrument of oppression" but a means for the psychologist to verify what was said and to "discover where the truth might lie".
At the Court of Appeal, lawyers for the woman asked the court to set aside her conviction in light of the DPP's position.
Stock image
News in 90 Seconds - June 24th
The woman was convicted following a retrial in July 2024 of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - all of whom have disabilities - between January 1, 2005, and March 25, 2015. She was also convicted of one count of child neglect between August 3, 2008, and March 25, 2015.
She was sentenced to eight years in prison with the final two years suspended by Judge Catherine Staines at Clonmel Circuit Court on December 17, 2024, but has remained on bail pending her appeal.
The judge in the appellant's first trial ruled that admissions she had made to the psychologist were not voluntary and ought to be excluded. As they were the only evidence against the woman, the court directed the jury to acquit her of all charges.
The DPP appealed this decision and in October 2022 the Court of Appeal found the admissions ought not to have been excluded.
The woman subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court which upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling and directed that a retrial take place.
Launching a bid to have the woman's conviction set aside at the Court of Appeal today, defence senior counsel Dermot Cahill said the only evidence against the appellant was her admissions and the issue was whether they were voluntary.
He said on two separate occasions the trial judge had expressed 'serious concerns' about the admissibility of this evidence.
'The error of the trial judge was not to follow through on her own sense of justice,' he said.
Mr Cahill said the judge had 'serious misgivings' about the evidence but failed to follow up on her concerns.
He said the DPP has reviewed matters and in a letter has 'sought not to oppose an appeal against conviction'. Counsel said the Director has also indicated she will not be seeking a retrial in the case.
'On that basis I'm asking the court to set aside this conviction,' he said.
Outlining the background to the case, Mr Cahill said the woman's husband and brother-in-law were charged but the DPP initially indicated they did not intend to prosecute her.
However, during the course of a safeguarding assessment concerning two of her adult children, the woman made admissions to a psychologist which led the DPP to revise her decision and instigate a prosecution against his client.
Mr Cahill said the woman was interviewed by the psychologist over the course of five days. He said in the retrial, great emphasis was placed on day four and day five which led the expert witness to accept that things 'may have been said that may have been regarded as inducements'.
He said the manner in which polygraph tests were conducted also came into focus during the second trial.
Ms Justice Tara Burns, sitting with Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, said the court understood the position the director was taking but asked counsel for the State if there was anything he had to add.
Michael Delaney SC, for the DPP, replied: 'In defence of the trial judge and our own position, we were dealing with a fairly emphatic judgment from the Supreme Court'. He went on to say that the impact on the question of admissibility in this particular setting was 'more difficult to assess'.
Ms Justice Burns said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision on July 14.