Family members give evidence in defence of woman accused of abusing cousin

By Isabel Hayes

Several mutual family members of a young woman accused of sexually abusing her younger cousin when they were children have given evidence for the defence.

The grandmother of both the accused woman and the complainant told defence counsel, Dominic McGinn SC, that the girls never slept over together in her house as has been alleged.

A number of aunts and uncles of both the accused and the complainant gave evidence for the defence that the two girls were not particularly friendly when they were growing up.

Many of them agreed with prosecuting counsel that the allegations have been upsetting for the extended family.

The Dublin woman (20), who can’t be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to 11 counts of sexual assault and one count of section 4 rape of the girl in various addresses in Dublin on dates between July 2017 and July 2019.

In relation to the section 4 rape allegation, the accused is charged with penetrating the girl with a hairbrush.

The girl was aged between 10 and 11 at the time of the alleged offending, while the accused was aged between 12 and 14.

The prosecution alleges the abuse occurred when the girls had sleepovers in each other’s homes or, on one occasion, in the home of a mutual aunt.

The jury has been told that the alleged abuse started before the accused turned 12 years of age, when she is alleged to have been watching pornography on her tablet before asking her younger cousin to carry out sexual acts while they were staying in their grandmother’s house.

There are no charges pertaining to these allegations as the accused had not yet reached the age of responsibility.

Their grandmother told defence counsel today that while the accused woman stayed in her house on occasion, the younger girl only stayed on one occasion when a younger sibling was born.

She said the two girls did not sleep over together at any time.

When asked by prosecution counsel, Anne Rowland SC, why she did not invite the younger girl to stay over, the woman said that when this child was a baby, her daughter-in-law had told her: “She’s my daughter, not yours.”

She said she did not invite her grand-daughter to stay over, but it was asked of her by the accused woman’s mother.

When asked by defence counsel if she would ever lie under oath in order to help her older grand-daughter, the woman said: “I do not lie and I am telling the truth.”

The accused took the stand last week and denied the allegations, telling the court: “None of it is true.”

She said she never had a sleepover with her cousin apart from one occasion in their aunt’s house, when the aunt stayed in the room with them.

This aunt also gave evidence yesterday and told the court that the only time the two girls had a sleepover was when there was another niece present.

She said she stayed in the room until the three girls were asleep, due to a faulty light.

She agreed with prosecuting counsel that when she first gave a statement to gardaí, she could not recall this sleepover.

The accused woman’s mother also gave evidence yesterday and told the court that the girls did not have sleepovers in each other’s homes.

She said they did not sleep over together in their grandmother’s.

She told the court that she was estranged from her brother – the complainant’s father – for a period of time, but that around the time of the complainant’s communion, she and her sister-in-law agreed the two girls should spend more time together.

She listed a couple of times she brought her niece to the cinema and McDonalds. She said these excursions did not include sleepovers.

When asked if the girls were friends, the mother said: “Not really, no.”

“They were such different kids,” she said. “(My daughter) is very soft and sweet. I’m not saying (the complainant) isn’t. They are very different.”

She said her daughter would “play with the little ones” at family gatherings while the complainant “sat with the adults”.

She said her daughter broke her ipad in 2011 and it was not replaced. When asked if she ever came across anything of a pornographic nature, she said: “No, certainly not.”

She told the court the accused woman had her first boyfriend in 2021.

The mother brought the court through a review of the relevant period in 2017 to 2019 which she had collated and in which she outlined where her daughter was every weekend.

The court heard the accused woman was extremely busy with her chosen sport almost every weekend and during the holidays.

The cousins’ mutual uncle also gave evidence for the defence. He is a brother to the accused’s mother and the complainant’s father.

He said he used to have a good relationship with his brother but that relations have since “broken down”. “He cut me off.”

He said the cousins were “like chalk and cheese” and “weren’t pals”. He said the complainant’s mother – his sister-in-law – would often “make swipes” at the accused woman and say things that were “very unnecessary for an adult to say about a child”.

When asked why he thought she did this, the uncle replied: “jealousy”.

“Would she make things up?” defence counsel asked, referring to the complainant’s mother. “I would believe so,” the uncle replied.

The uncle rejected a prosecution submission that his assertion that the complainant’s mother was jealous of the accused woman was “nonsense” and an attempt to discredit the child’s mother. “This evidence is not correct, a grown woman being jealous of a child,” Ms Rowland said.

“It’s how it is,” the uncle replied.

Four other family members of both the accused and the complainant also gave evidence for the defence.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Kerida Naidoo and a jury.