Mother (54) should never have been convicted of sexually assaulting her children, court rules

Ryan Dunne

A 54-year-old woman 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.

"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.

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, following a retrial in July 2024, of four counts of sexual assault against three of her sons - all of whom have disabilities - 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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.