by Eoghan Dalton
Closing the State’s case today, senior counsel Roisin Lacey told the jury it had been a short trial and acknowledged they had not spent much time in the courtroom due to legal argument between the opposing sides.
Ms Lacy focused on the reliability of the young girl, following claims by the defence during cross-examination that she had “made up” the claims in a bid for attention from her mother. The prosecution rejected this, pointing to medical inspections conducted in the wake of the girl disclosing the allegations and her now potentially “suppressing memories” of what happened. Ms Lacey said the girl was previously clear about her claims when she first came forward, four years ago, in a Garda interview conducted which broadcast to the court. However, partly due to the passage of time, she had become “less effusive” giving fewer details when addressing the court via video link this week. Ms Lacey said this could be attributed to adolescents becoming increasingly reluctant as they age, so that it “becomes like pulling teeth”, particularly as the girl was being questioned about sexual matters in a courtroom. She added that while the girl told defence barrister Colman Cody several times she did not know what happened and seemed unsure at points, she also “did not retract” any of her previous claims. “Is she a child who simply tries not to remember the exact details,” she asked, adding that the girl may have “pushed them to the back of her head” in more recent years. The defence also pointed to the girl’s false recollections of a car collision in Co Waterford while with her mother as a way of showing she was unreliable. Ms Lacey said this was a “red-herring” tactic and focused on the girl’s past suffering of sexual abuse at the hands of an older relative – an entirely different man. The court heard the girl has now suppressed this memory and does not recall any of the abuse, but accepts it did happen. Ms Lacey said the defence had attempted to portray the girl as a “fantasist” but that this did not apply to earlier confirmed sexual abuse she had suffered. Evidence provided by a doctor specialising in sexual abuse showed there were no lacerations on the girl’s private parts. The doctor added that this “does not preclude the possibility of anal penetration”.