Latest news with #CatherineStaines
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Irish Times
Mother (54) should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her children, court rules
A mother (54) should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her three disabled children as she was subjected to an 'extreme' imbalance of power when she made inculpatory statements to a psychologist and polygrapher, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Allowing her an appeal against her conviction, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore said on Monday the only evidence against the woman were 'inculpatory statements which she made in truly extraordinary circumstances'. He noted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was not opposing the appeal, and a retrial will not be sought. The appellant had pleaded not guilty but was convicted by a jury, following a retrial in July 2024, of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - between January 1st, 2005, and March 25th, 2015. She was also convicted of one count of child neglect between August 3rd, 2008, and March 25th, 2015. She was sentenced by Judge Catherine Staines to eight years, with the final two years suspended, but had remained on bail pending her appeal. READ MORE 'One of the most heinous crimes is sexual abuse by a mother of her own children,' said Mr Justice O'Moore, adding the woman should never have been convicted. . He said to add to the unusual nature of the case, the statements were made not to gardaí but to a psychologist and a polygrapher retained by Tusla . 'The manner in which [they] conducted certain parts of the final two days of interviews did not meet the standards one would expect, to put it mildly,' said Mr Justice O'Moore. He said the woman was assessed and interviewed over five days in August 2015, before she made inculpatory statements on the final day. In July 2021, she was tried before the Circuit Court, where the judge ruled admissions made ought to be excluded as they were not voluntary. The trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The DPP appealed this, with the Court of Appeal ruling the admissions ought not to be excluded. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, with a retrial then taking place. During the retrial, the psychologist accepted that statements made by the polygrapher could have been interpreted as inducements. The psychologist also accepted there was a risk the appellant may have made admissions to him on the basis she believed this was what he wanted. The trial judge said she had serious concerns about the voluntariness of the admissions, but she ultimately ruled she was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and that the admissions made by the woman were admissible. Mr Justice O'Moore said neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had available to it the revealing evidence of the psychologist given in the second trial. 'As these admissions constituted the only evidence against her, it follows that she should have been acquitted of all charges against her,' he said , ruling the court would allow the appeal.
BreakingNews.ie
2 days ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Mother (54) should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her children, court rules
A 54-year-old woman should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her three children as she was subjected to an 'extreme' imbalance of power when she made inculpatory statements to a psychologist and polygrapher, the Court of Appeal has ruled. "The only evidence against her were inculpatory statements which she made in truly extraordinary circumstances,' said Mr Justice Brian O'Moore on Monday, allowing the woman an appeal against her conviction. Advertisement He noted that the Director of Public Prosecutions was not opposing this appeal, and a retrial will not be sought. The appellant had pleaded not guilty but was convicted by a jury in July 2024 of four offences contrary to section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990, as amended by section 37 of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. She was also convicted of one offence contrary to section 246 (1) and (2) of the Children Act, 2001. She was sentenced by Judge Catherine Staines to eight years, with the final two years suspended, but had remained on bail pending her appeal. Advertisement 'One of the most heinous crimes is sexual abuse by a mother of her own children,' said Mr Justice O'Moore, adding that the woman should never have been convicted of these offences. He said that to add to the unusual nature of this case, the statements were made not to gardaí but to a psychologist and a polygrapher retained by Tusla. 'The manner in which (they) conducted certain parts of the final two days of interviews did not meet the standards one would expect, to put it mildly,' said Mr Justice O'Moore. He said that the woman was assessed and interviewed over five days in August 2015, before she made inculpatory statements on the final day. Advertisement In July 2021, she was tried before the Circuit Court, where the judge ruled that admissions made ought to be excluded as they were not voluntary. The trial judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. The DPP appealed this, with the Court of Appeal ruling that the admissions ought not to be excluded. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, with a retrial then taking place. During the retrial, the psychologist accepted that statements made by the polygrapher could have been interpreted as inducements. The psychologist also accepted that there was a risk that the appellant may have made admissions to him on the basis that she believed this was what he wanted. The trial judge said she had serious concerns about the voluntariness of the admissions, but she ultimately ruled that she was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and that the admissions made by the woman were admissible. Advertisement Mr Justice O'Moore said that a mother was questioned over a five-day period about her relations with her children, and she was put under huge pressure to give the answers which at least one of her interlocutors made clear that he wanted to hear. A deal was then proposed to her by which "the whole unpleasant process" would come to an end if she just gave the desired answers. 'We believe the trial judge was wrong to find that the issues agitated before her had been decided by the Court of Appeal or by the Supreme Court,' said Mr Justice O'Moore. Ireland Uber delivery cyclist (36) settles €60k damages cl... Read More He said that neither the Court of Appeal nor the Supreme Court had available to it the revealing evidence of the psychologist given in the second trial, where he effectively accepted that certain interventions by the polygrapher constituted inducements and that the woman was on occasion telling him what she thought he wanted to hear. Advertisement 'It is clear that the interviews were unfair in a very fundamental way,' said Mr Justice O'Moore, adding that 'the imbalance of power was extreme' between the appellant and those interviewing her. He went on to say that the trial judge should have proceeded to follow through on her own analysis and exclude the inculpatory statements. 'As these admissions constituted the only evidence against her, it follows that she should have been acquitted of all charges against her,' said Mr Justice O'Moore, ruling that the court would allow the appeal.
Sunday World
24-06-2025
- Sunday World
DPP will not oppose woman's appeal to quash conviction for sexually abusing her children
The woman was convicted following a retrial in July 2024 of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons The State has said it will not oppose an appeal by a 54-year-old woman to have her conviction for the sexual abuse and neglect of her disabled children quashed. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has also indicated that a retrial will not be sought. The Court of Appeal heard that a psychologist who interviewed the woman accepted that alleged admissions she made may have resulted from "perceived inducements". The psychologist carried out a number of interviews over five days, some of which included the use of a polygraph test, which formed the basis of the prosecution's case. The judge expressed reservations during the woman's second trial about the alleged admissions but felt bound by a Supreme Court decision which had found the interviews to be admissible. In its decision, the Supreme Court had found that the manner of those interviews did not compel the admissions to be excluded. It further found that the polygraph test was not an "instrument of oppression" but a means for the psychologist to verify what was said and to "discover where the truth might lie". At the Court of Appeal, lawyers for the woman asked the court to set aside her conviction in light of the DPP's position. Stock image News in 90 Seconds - June 24th The woman was convicted following a retrial in July 2024 of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - all of whom have disabilities - between January 1, 2005, and March 25, 2015. She was also convicted of one count of child neglect between August 3, 2008, and March 25, 2015. She was sentenced to eight years in prison with the final two years suspended by Judge Catherine Staines at Clonmel Circuit Court on December 17, 2024, but has remained on bail pending her appeal. The judge in the appellant's first trial ruled that admissions she had made to the psychologist were not voluntary and ought to be excluded. As they were the only evidence against the woman, the court directed the jury to acquit her of all charges. The DPP appealed this decision and in October 2022 the Court of Appeal found the admissions ought not to have been excluded. The woman subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court which upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling and directed that a retrial take place. Launching a bid to have the woman's conviction set aside at the Court of Appeal today, defence senior counsel Dermot Cahill said the only evidence against the appellant was her admissions and the issue was whether they were voluntary. He said on two separate occasions the trial judge had expressed 'serious concerns' about the admissibility of this evidence. 'The error of the trial judge was not to follow through on her own sense of justice,' he said. Mr Cahill said the judge had 'serious misgivings' about the evidence but failed to follow up on her concerns. He said the DPP has reviewed matters and in a letter has 'sought not to oppose an appeal against conviction'. Counsel said the Director has also indicated she will not be seeking a retrial in the case. 'On that basis I'm asking the court to set aside this conviction,' he said. Outlining the background to the case, Mr Cahill said the woman's husband and brother-in-law were charged but the DPP initially indicated they did not intend to prosecute her. However, during the course of a safeguarding assessment concerning two of her adult children, the woman made admissions to a psychologist which led the DPP to revise her decision and instigate a prosecution against his client. Mr Cahill said the woman was interviewed by the psychologist over the course of five days. He said in the retrial, great emphasis was placed on day four and day five which led the expert witness to accept that things 'may have been said that may have been regarded as inducements'. He said the manner in which polygraph tests were conducted also came into focus during the second trial. Ms Justice Tara Burns, sitting with Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath, said the court understood the position the director was taking but asked counsel for the State if there was anything he had to add. Michael Delaney SC, for the DPP, replied: 'In defence of the trial judge and our own position, we were dealing with a fairly emphatic judgment from the Supreme Court'. He went on to say that the impact on the question of admissibility in this particular setting was 'more difficult to assess'. Ms Justice Burns said the court would reserve judgement and deliver its decision on July 14.
