
Father accused of shaking his infant daughter walks free from court as jury acquits him of all charges
A 31-year-old man has walked free from court after a jury found him not guilty of a series of charges where it was alleged that he had shaken his five-month-old daughter and caused her harm and unnecessary suffering.
The man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his daughter, denied all three charges, which the State alleged occurred while the infant was in his care at their family home in
Cork
over a six-week period between November 25th, 2020, and January 4th, 2021.
He was charged with causing serious harm to the child on January 4th, 2021, and with assault causing harm to the child between November 25th and December 15th, 2020.
The man was also charged with wilfully assaulting or ill-treating the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering to the child's health or seriously affect the child's wellbeing.
READ MORE
A jury of five men and seven women at Cork
Circuit Criminal Court
on Friday unanimously found the man not guilty of the assault causing harm charge. They returned majority verdicts acquitting him of the charges of causing serious harm and ill-treatment.
Judge Dermot Sheehan thanked the jury for their diligence and deliberation before informing the accused that he was free to go. The man was immediately embraced by his mother, who had sat through the nine-day trial at Anglesea Street courthouse in Cork.
Prosecution counsel Jane Hyland SC had called evidence from consultant paediatrician Dr Rosina McGovern, who said the accused and his partner brought the child to
Cork University Hospital
on January 4th, 2021, and offered no explanation for the many injuries the child had.
These included bruises on her face, cheek, stomach, abdomen and buttock and abrasions on her forehead, cheek and nose, and a fractured collarbone. A CT scan showed bleeding on the brain and behind the eyes – injuries the court heard are usually associated with a high-impact collision such as a car crash.
Dr McGovern said the brain injuries, which were caused by a back-and-forth acceleration and deceleration movement, were consistent with abusive head trauma or
shaken baby syndrome
. She said she believed the injuries constituted serious harm as defined in Irish law.
However, the accused testified that he had never shaken the baby. He said he told social workers he had done so in an attempt to ensure his partner would keep the child, who they feared they might never get to see again if one of them did not say he had shaken the girl.
He also said that earlier admissions about twice dropping the child accidentally were similarly made in order to provide an explanation to the hospital authorities for the child's injuries. He said they were told they would not be allowed to take the child home until the injuries were explained.
The accused spent almost three hours in the witness box and his mother and his partner's mother also gave evidence, as did hospital consultants, social workers and investigating gardaí. The infant's mother did not attend the hearing or give evidence.
Defence counsel Ray Boland SC made reference to the fact that the infant's mother was not called by the prosecution. He said the jury needed to pay particular heed to her absence, given how central she was to the narrative proposed by the prosecution.
'It is a huge [mother's name]-shaped hole in the case. Does [mother's name] look like a person who would shake a baby? We don't know. And we don't know why the DPP did not bring her,' he said to the jury.
Mr Boland also suggested to the jury that only 'an eejit' would make admissions that he did something such as shake the baby if they had not done it. However, he said his client had done that was because he was young and out of his depth among professionals such as doctors and social workers.
The jury heard memos of interviews from when gardaí questioned the accused.
'I didn't shake her, I swear to God I didn't do it,' he said. 'I know somebody did shake her, but I don't know who. I will maintain my innocence until the day I die. I did not shake my baby.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Attorney general scandal adds to Spanish government woes
The unprecedented legal action being taken against Spain 's attorney general which could see him go on trial and has fuelled calls for his resignation is just the latest in a litany of scandals which have left the Socialist-led government of Pedro Sánchez struggling for stability. This week, a supreme court investigating judge recommended that the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, should face trial for his alleged role in leaking secret information to the media about a tax fraudster. In March 2024, Spanish media reported details of a plea deal which Alberto González Amador, boyfriend of the conservative president of the Madrid regional government Isabel Díaz Ayuso, had proposed to the general attorney's office. The tax office had found that González Amador had avoided paying about €350,000 from earnings made from importing healthcare material during the Covid-19 pandemic. READ MORE The media reports corrected a false claim made by Díaz Ayuso's team that the attorney general's office had been the one to offer a deal. The investigating judge, Ángel Luis Hurtado, has now accused the attorney general himself of being the source of the reports. According to the judge, the leak aimed 'to make clear that, according to [García Ortiz], the attorney general had not offered any deal of this kind'. Díaz Ayuso, a prominent figure on the right, has been a fierce critic of the government. If he does go on trial, which now looks likely, and were to be found guilty, García Ortiz could receive a jail sentence of up to four years. However, the most damaging allegation, as far as the government is concerned, was that the attorney general, who it proposed for the post, was acting on the orders of the prime minister's office. The left-wing coalition government has staunchly defended the attorney general and justice minister Félix Bolanos flatly denied the claim the government was involved in the leak. [ Catalan amnesty expected to get court blessing amid political turmoil Opens in new window ] 'I regret very much that the supreme court should make such a serious assertion without any evidence, because that never happened,' he said. However, the opposition says García Ortiz cannot remain in his post. 'The situation regarding the attorney general is unprecedented in our democracy, you must demand his resignation,' Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the conservative Popular Party (PP), told Sánchez in Congress on Wednesday. The opposition leader has cast this as the latest in a series of scandals to affect the government. Sánchez's wife, Begona Gómez, has been investigated for possible business irregularities and his musician brother, David, is due to go on trial for alleged influence peddling in being appointed to a public post. A former Socialist minister, José Luis Ábalos, is being investigated on suspicion of profiting from a kickback scheme when he was in government. Meanwhile, a former Socialist party official, Leire Díez, has been caught on tape offering favourable treatment to a businessman in exchange for incriminating information on the police unit carrying out investigations into several cases affecting the government. Many judicial experts have said the attorney general's position is untenable. However, a large number have also expressed concerns about the judge's investigation, pointing to an apparent lack of evidence against García Ortiz. Tensions between the government and the judiciary have been escalating since Sánchez's administration introduced an amnesty law for Catalan nationalists last year. Many on the left see the ongoing investigations as part of a campaign by magistrates with right-wing allegiances. Government spokeswoman Pilar Alegría said that 'at this point certain judges are doing things which are difficult to understand'. A recent poll by the national statistics institute found that 78 per cent of Spaniards do not trust the impartiality of their justice system in cases involving political parties.


Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Epistolics Anonymous – Frank McNally on a Joycean mystery wrapped in an enigma
Further to the 'U.P.: up' mystery in Joyce's Ulysses (Diary, June 5th), there is the related puzzle of where we first meet Denis Breen: unfortunate recipient of the cryptic message who, if he wasn't demented already, has been driven so by receipt of the anonymous postcard. He is now tramping around Dublin with two lawbooks under his oxter and on the way to see John Henry Menton about a £10,000 libel suit. But when Leopold Bloom encounters Mrs Breen, in Dublin's Westmoreland Street, her other half is in Harrison's, a confectioner's shop next door to The Irish Times. The smell of 'hot mockturtle soup and steam of newbaked jampuffs rolypoly' emerges from the doorway, setting Bloom on another of his streamlets of consciousness, which ends with: 'Penny dinner. knife and fork chained to the table'. That last bit seems to be a reference, not to Harrison's – or to The Irish Times canteen, as some might suspect – but to a Christian charity on Abbey Street that served free breakfasts, and did indeed imprison the cutlery lest it be considered charity too. READ MORE But getting back to Breen, is there any significance in his being first located here? Well, as always with James Joyce, yes. Or at least probably. For as hardcore Joycean and regular correspondent Senan Molony again reminds me, the real-life James White Harrison who owned that confectionery shop had himself once been the recipient of anonymous mail, sent with malevolent intent. We know this because, just as Breen intends to, Harrison went to court over it. But he had a somewhat stronger case, albeit as a mere witness rather than the plaintiff. Either way, he was sufficiently committed to it that he travelled from Dublin to Liverpool to testify. This was back in 1883, the same year as the trials for the infamous Phoenix Park murders of Britain's chief secretary Lord Frederick Cavendish and his permanent under-secretary TH Burke. Harrison's evidence, however, related to his having been a juror in the earlier trial of a Patrick Walsh, charged with the 'Letterfrack Murders' of a father and son in 1881, at the height of the Land War. Walsh was hanged for that in September 1882, although not before a leading prosecution witness, Constable Kavanagh, had been shot dead outside Letterfrack Barracks. Now, in 1883, even as the Phoenix Park Murder trials got under way, Harrison – a Presbyterian born in Scotland – and many other regular jurors received an anonymously posted envelope containing two documents. One was an analysis of the juries that had served in 18 Fenian trials in Ireland, purporting to show that they were packed by the crown with people who could be depended on to deliver guilty verdicts. The second document was a single-page warning, with a black border, saying: 'Woe to you if you have the goods of any of these jurors in your house, for you, as well as they, will have the blood and suffering of innocent people upon your heads'. The letters were postmarked in Manchester but a trail from there eventually led detectives to a printing house in Liverpool, where one Michael Haines admitted producing thousands of copies for a Patrick O'Brien, late secretary of the Land League's Liverpool branch. They and a second printer were charged with conspiracy to defeat the course of justice, and with criminal libel (the same thing Denis Breen thinks he's suffered). The printers went free eventually, after a period on remand. O'Brien served six months in prison. Harrison's involvement in the Liverpool trial was well reported. And by his own account, he was not intimidated by the anonymous letter. 'I was not frightened, as there was nothing to be frightened about,' he said. The case may have survived in the folk memory of 1904, and from there infiltrated Ulysses, via an incidental cameo. But it hardly helps us with the mystery of what the 'U.P.' on Breen's postcard means, or why it's been sent. Bloom has his own suspicions: 'U.P.: up. I'll take my oath that's Alf Bergan or Richie Goulding. Wrote it for a lark in the Scotch House, I bet anything.' But just then, he passes The Irish Time and thinks. 'There might be other answers lying there.' He goes on to admire the business acumen of those running the newspaper, who have managed to expand their advertising reach beyond the traditional ascendancy class: 'Best paper by long shots for a small ad. Got the provinces now. Cook and general, exc cuisine, housemaid kept. Wanted live man for spirit counter. Resp. girl (R.C.) wishes to hear of post in fruit or pork shop. James Carlisle made that.' Carlyle – as he spelt his name – was the real-life managing director of The Irish Times. And among other things, he was a member of the United Presbyterians, a Scotch House of a different kind and a 'U.P.' too. That may be neither here nor there, of course. Even so, it's as good a place as any to mention how, based on the possibility that The Irish Times might still have all the answers, the Diarist was recently interviewed by a legal podcast called The Fifth Court. It was for a Bloomsday special on the law in Ulysses. The results are now live at


Irish Times
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
WRC cuts dismissal award to Penneys worker who called bosses ‘scrotes' in WhatsApp group
A tribunal has made a reduced award to a Penneys worker after finding her mostly liable for her own dismissal after she replied with two 'crying laughing' emojis when a colleague declared she would 'skull drag' a manager in a WhatsApp group. The Workplace Relations Commission heard the claimant, Janine Halpin, also added: 'Hope she gets the s**ts for a year'. She told company investigators her posts were 'a show of support' for a colleague who had just failed in an appeal against her own sacking. Her trade union rep had argued that the allegations were 'beyond the realms of the workplace' as Ms Halpin was off work at the time and the messages were in an invite-only WhatsApp group. READ MORE The tribunal has upheld a complaint against Primark Ltd (which trades under the Penneys brand in Ireland) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 by Ms Halpin, a part-time retail assistant, who was sacked for gross misconduct at the clothing retailer's store at the Square Shopping Centre in Tallaght, Dublin 24, on June 5th 2024. An adjudicator ruled that the company had turned its investigation into an 'ambush' by handing Ms Halpin a letter just half an hour before calling her into a meeting to be questioned on screenshots from the WhatsApp group. He cut the compensation awarded by 70 per cent due to her level of contribution and directed the company to pay Ms Halpin €1,277.64, which was less than four weeks gross wages rather than the four months' pay her trade union had sought in the claim. The tribunal heard Ms Halpin had a final written warning live on her personnel file when she was called in for a company investigation in May last year. The probe was launched after an anonymous tipster went to bosses at Primark with concerns about 'threatening' messages in an unofficial WhatsApp group called '052 Madness' – the number in the title being the internal store code for Penneys in Tallaght, the company submitted. After another Penneys employee wrote in the chat that she had just failed to have her own dismissal from the company overturned on appeal, Ms Halpin wrote: 'Little scrotes not taken you back [sic],' the company submitted. The other employee then went on to write: 'Gonna skull drag [a named manager] when I see her,' the submissions said. Ms Halpin replied with two 'crying laughing' emojis and wrote: 'I hope she gets the s**ts for the next year.' Asked if she believed her messages could cause offence to her colleagues, Ms Halpin said: 'Nope, no-ones names mentioned,' according to the investigation meeting minutes submitted by the company. Adjudication officer Jim Dolan found the only flaw in the company's procedure was that it gave Ms Halpin just 30 minutes notice of an investigation meeting. 'This lack of notice turns the invitation to an investigation meeting into an ambush,' he wrote. Although he found Ms Halpin's complaint well-founded, he ruled that she was 70 per cent liable for her own dismissal, and directed Primark to pay her €1,277.64. Greg Caffrey of Mandate appeared for the worker in the case, while Primark was represented by Michael McGrath of IBEC.