This article contains references to sexual acts involving minors and child sexual abuse material, which some readers may find distressing.
Reader discretion is advised.
By Eimear Dodd
A 15-year-old boy who engaged in sexual acts with a 12-year-old girl over two years ago had “unrestricted access” to devices from an early age, a court has heard.
Michael Bowman SC, defending, outlined that his client had “unrestricted access” to devices from a young age – which were intended to assist his education – but the boy started to access “singularly inappropriate” material when he was nine or 10 years’ old.
Mr Bowman submitted that unrestricted access to devices “appears to bring with it considerable difficulties”.
The now 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to engaging in a sexual act with a child, known in law as defilement, in early 2024.
John Berry SC, prosecuting, told the Central Criminal Court that the plea was acceptable to the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis of full facts being outlined to the court.
The boy was 15 years and three months old at the time of his offending, while the girl was then aged just over 12 years old.
No one can be identified to protect the children’s right to anonymity.
Evidence was heard that the boy was known to the girl’s older brother. The defendant would have been aware of her age and that she was in primary school, the court was told.
The boy and the girl were in contact on various social media platforms and there was “sustained and intense communication” in the days before this incident, Mr Berry said.
Prosecuting counsel described their Whatsapp conversations as “of a very adult nature”, adding that “very frank sexual matters were discussed by both parties”.
Five days before the incident, the boy shared an intimate photo with the girl, which they then discussed. The girl also told the boy about engaging in a sexual act with a different boy.
They arranged to meet and on the day in question, the boy sent the girl his address and log-on details for his home’s wi-fi in case she ran out of credit.
The girl told specialist garda interviewers that she and the boy went to an area near his home. She said they started kissing, before engaging in other sexual acts.
Afterwards, she went home. The boy and girl chatted on social media in the days after. He repeatedly asked how she was and offered apologies. The girl replied along the lines of ‘don’t worry’, but also expressed a degree of concern, the court was told.
The offending came to light shortly afterwards, when the girl told her friend, who alerted her own mother. The girl’s primary school was contacted by her friend’s mother and gardai became involved.
The boy’s home was also searched and devices were seized.
The investigating garda outlined that it was late 2024 before the Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau completed its analysis and after this evidence was reviewed, the boy was interviewed in May 2025, with nothing of probative value obtained.
The court was told that the case was deemed unsuitable for the Garda Youth Diversion Programme and was sent forward to the Central Criminal Court, where the boy pleaded guilty to the charge earlier this year.
The boy has no previous convictions, but has since pleaded guilty at the Children’s Court to charges of possession and production of child sexual abuse material, or child pornography.
Mr Bowman suggested to the garda that the “very sexual communication was very much a two-way street” between the parties and their conversation was “entirely inappropriate”, which was accepted.
The garda accepted that both had unrestricted access to devices and that this was a factor in the offending.
She agreed with Mr Bowman that the boy received a laptop in primary school after being assessed as requiring additional educational supports and his parents did not supervise his use of this device.
It was further agreed that the boy appears to be intelligent, but also naive and has a difficult family dynamic. The garda also agreed that the guilty plea was valuable to the prosecution.
A victim impact statement was handed to the court and not read aloud as requested by the girl’s family. The girl remains in school and is undergoing counselling. Her parents were present in court.
Mr Bowman said this was a “clearly inappropriate relationship” and his client acknowledges his wrongdoing.
Counsel noted the probation report expresses concern about his client’s level of insight and understanding of sexual matters, and has suggested “considerable degree of intervention” to reduce his risk of future offending.
The boy and his family have engaged with therapeutic services offered by Tusla and his parents were in court with him.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott noted that these types of cases are “quite difficult to deal with from the point of view of the ages” of those involved and that the court would require time to consider sentence.
Remanding the boy on continuing bail, he adjourned the case to next month for finalisation.