Teenage boy who engaged in sex acts with 12 year old had had “unrestricted access” to devices from a young age

By Eimear Dodd

A 15-year-old boy who engaged in sexual acts with a 12-year-old girl over two years ago has been told it will be his responsibility to engage with the Probation Service during the suspended portion of a two-year detention order.

The now 17-year-old will spend eight months in detention, and the final 16 months of the two-year sentence have been suspended for three years on very strict conditions.

Mr Justice Paul McDermott said the court’s view was that a period in detention would provide “space and time” for the boy to recognise the need to address his offending behaviour, engage with therapeutic services and minimise future risks.

“Hopefully, the structure of sentence will bring him to that stage and state of mind,” the judge said, noting that any interventions will only be effective if the boy engages with them.

Addressing the boy directly, the judge said the period in detention is relatively short, even if it doesn’t seem that way to him at the moment.

He told the boy that he must assume responsibility for complying with the conditions of the suspended portion of the sentence, including having no contact with the victim and engaging with any therapeutic programmes deemed suitable.

The boy will also be subject to the requirements of the Sex Offender’s Act for three years.

Referring to the victim impact statement, Mr Justice McDermott told the boy that “effects on her are significant and will continue probably longer than the term you are going to serve”.

The boy pleaded guilty to engaging in a sexual act with a child, known in law as defilement, in early 2024.

John Berry SC, prosecuting, previously 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 parties’ right to anonymity.

Imposing sentence, Mr Justice McDermott said this was a “serious offence” committed against a very young child.

He said while there was a “mutual engagement”, it was “skewed”, noting that the boy was older and might be expected to show “some degree of maturity”, respect and responsibility towards the girl.

He noted the evidence of messages of a sexual nature between the boy and girl and that “both understand what they were doing would be disapproved by adults and was wrong”.

He said the boy understood that any sexual contact “they had had to be secret and hidden from adults”.

The judge said an important feature of the case was that there was no evidence of threats, violence or intimidation.

The judge noted that the probation report states the boy “feels he was manipulated in some way” into the situation and that the boy said his apology after the incident was out of worry that the girl would get in trouble for being late home.

He said the boy must complete a “considerable amount of work” in relation to victim empathy and insight, and on consent and healthy sexual relationships.

A risk assessment completed by the Probation Service noted that the boy was accessing pornography online from the age of nine or ten, the judge said.

The boy’s parents are supportive, but the judge noted the report found they were “somewhat unaware of dangers and didn’t regulate his access to the internet as much as they might have.

He said a headline sentence of six years would apply for an adult but reduced it to three years to reflect the boy’s youth.

The judge said in the court’s view there had been “minimum progress” by the boy in addressing his offending behaviour and it was “very important” for his future wellbeing and society in general that this changed.

Evidence was previously heard that the boy was known to the girl’s older brother. The court was told the defendant was aware of her age and that she was in primary school.

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-in 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.

Gardaí also searched the boy’s home and seized devices.

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.

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 ten years old.

Mr Bowman submitted that unrestricted access to devices “appears to bring with it considerable difficulties”.

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.

She also agreed that both parties had unrestricted access to devices and that this was a factor in the offending.

It was further accepted 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 also agreed that the boy appears to be intelligent, but also naive, has a difficult family dynamic and 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 are willing to engage with therapeutic services offered and his parents were in court with him.