Silent Indictment
It was the first time the office had communicated with her directly since gardaí had sent a file on her case to the State prosecution service in 2003.
Ms McDermott set up a lobby group a couple of months ago calling for an overhaul in how child sex abuses cases are dealt with by the State.
She publicised her own case, in which the DPP twice decided not to prosecute her alleged abuser. In line with DPP policy, she was not given a reason for the decision.
She managed to glean from gardaí that her first file was turned down due to lack of corroborative evidence and a second file due to lack of new evidence.
As she publicised her case, Ms McDermott also alleged that her abuser had been told he would not be prosecuted two months before either gardaí or she herself was informed.
This issue was reported in certain media, including the Irish Examiner, and was highlighted by Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny in the election campaign and in the televised leader’s debate.
The DPP’s office took exception to the claim and wrote Ms McDermott a detailed and frank letter.
The letter goes through the chain of events regarding the files relating to her case, and details when decisions were made by the office.
It categorically states Ms McDermott’s alleged abuser could not have learnt about the decision two months before she did.
The letter, signed by deputy director of prosecutions Barry Donoghue, said the DPP also checked if there was any written or telephone communication between their office and the alleged abuser.
“There is no such record. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there has been no communication between this office and X,” states Mr Donoghue.
The letter finishes: “I enclose a booklet in relation to the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions for your information.”
Ms McDermott said she was taken aback by the letter.
“I’m annoyed he spent so much time and effort checking phone records and file records just to defend their own actions, when as far as I could see they didn’t make too much effort looking at the medical evidence in my case.
“I’m just really annoyed that the only response I get from the DPP, the only time he thinks it’s reasonable to communicate with me, is to write me this letter defending their actions.
“Because of the bit of publicity I got, he responds to me. The office is running scared. I’m annoyed at the DPP for treating me like an idiot.”
She said her abuser was not stupid and was a powerful person. She claims he had friends in the prosecution system and was probably given the information verbally in an informal setting.
She said her abuser told a third party, who Ms McDermott knows, that he would not be prosecuted. This information was passed on to another person, who told Ms McDermott. While she accepts it’s a “round-about” way of hearing the information, she believes it and stands over her claim.
Ms McDermott is deeply unhappy with how the DPP’s office has dealt with her case.
In August 2002, almost 30 years after her abuse ordeal ended, she made a complaint to her local gardaí claiming she was sexually abused as a child and identifying her alleged abuser.
The Garda file contained two statements from her mother. The first was a signed statement from 1972, in a separate matter, in which the mother stated the alleged abuser carried out an “assault” on her daughter.
In a signed statement to investigating gardaí in 2003, her mother expressed serious concern at what the abuser was doing to her daughter.
While she does not explicitly state her daughter was being sexually abused, her statement, on several occasions, strongly suggests that.
“In December 2004, I was informed that my complaint had been dismissed by the DPP’s office, despite the fact that it contained a statement from my mother corroborating my allegations,” said Ms McDermott.
“The reason for the dismissal of my case, according to the DPP who, it should be remembered, has no obligation to give one, was that, apart from my mother, I had no corroboration of my account of what happened.
“Given that almost all rapes occur when there is no third party witness present I am still trying, and failing, to fathom his reasoning.”
Following this setback, Ms McDermott sought, and obtained, medical records from 1972 and 1974, when she was treated in her local hospital for a range of symptoms. She was diagnosed as having diabetes.
She showed these personal documents to the Irish Examiner after receiving the DPP’s letter.
The two sets of documents highlight the emotional distress she was suffering, including severe headaches, dizziness, weakness, anxiety and urinary tract infections.
While diabetes can cause such symptoms, urinary tract infections in children can also be due to sexual activity.
The documents also note comments from her mother that her daughter had blood spotting on her underpants for the last 18 months. It said her mother thought she was going to start menstruation, but that hadn’t happened.
The documents also note comments from her mother that a certain person, identified by the doctor with an initial, should not have access to her daughter.
Ms McDermott claims gardaí identified in 2003, after a conversation with the doctor, that the initial referred to the abuser she had named.
This evidence was contained in a second file submitted to the DPP in early 2005, with what Ms McDermott’s claims was a “strong recommendation” for prosecution by gardaí.
In January 2006, gardaí were informed that no prosecution would be taken. Ms McDermott said she learnt that this was because the medical evidence was not sufficient to take a case.
On top of these two rejections, and her claim that her abuser had prior knowledge of the second decision, Ms McDermott said she learnt in 2005 that her abuser had access to children through his wife, who started acting as a childminder.
She claims the wife told a third party of this and she learnt afterwards.
The wife said she put a three-year- old boy in her care into bed with her husband.
The wife said the child had been dropped into her very early and that she had to go out shopping.
“I nearly got sick when I heard this,” said Ms McDermott.
“I feared the worst and immediately contacted the relevant health board.”
She said she met with a social worker and gave her details. But she does not know what, if anything, happened.
“I’m worried about that three-year- old boy, I can’t rest easy.”
All her experiences drove her to set up her own organisation, called 19+1.
She said the name came from the rape crisis centre website that states only one of 20 cases reported to gardaí result in a prosecution.
Ms McDermott said she had about 1,000 members, of which more than 100 were sexually abused as a child.
“What I have experienced has been experienced by tens of thousands of people. The thing is we’re the most pliable lot, because we don’t identify ourselves.
“Up until recently, I’ve stayed hidden and silent. The DPP and the State rely on that, but no more.”
She said 19+1 was pushing, among other things, for:
A public inquiry into the State’s handling of childhood rape cases.
People to have direct contact with the DPP’s office and to have the name of the official handling their case.
A change to the DPP’s policy of not giving reasons for his decision not to prosecute.
A system allowing victims to appeal the DPP’s decisions.
A speedier court system.
Training for judges and lawyers.
Mandatory minimum sentences and consistent sentencing for offenders.
Legal representation for victims in court.
The organisation sought meetings with former justice minister Michael McDowell and former minister for children, and now Justice Minister, Brian Lenihan but there has been no response.
Contact 19+1 on 087-6798567 or the Rape Crisis Centre 24-hour helpline 1800-778-888.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
