Landlord attacked woman because she was ‘too sexy’
The court was told the man, now approaching 60, was separated from his wife who had won the lottery and held title deeds to a number of properties.
Ms Justice Maureen Clark said the man had without provocation sexually assaulted the young woman who was 27 years of age at the time. He had tried to kiss her and, when she resisted, pulled her into the living room and forced himself on her, climaxing in his clothes. The surprise, fear and embarrassment suffered by the woman had a profound effect on her. He had spent about an hour carrying out sexually humiliating behaviour towards her.
The judge said the assault was made by a person the woman trusted and was trusted by her parents. As a result of what had occurred she was verbally abused by members of his family and forced to leave the area. The judge said the woman had, through her own strength of character, eventually returned to her studies, obtained a diploma in law and was studying for her New York bar exams.
Ms Justice Clark said no amount of money could remove the effects of the ordeal. She assessed total damages at €175,000.
Richard McDonell SC, for the woman, told the court the vicious and shameful assault had taken place on October 8, 2001. Counsel said liability was only now conceded eight years after the sexual assault. There had been a trial and a conviction that was appealed and the conviction set aside.
The court was told the man had served the bulk of an 18-month sentence and in 2006 the conviction was set aside by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The defendant had denied the charge and claimed that the incident was consensual. The woman told the court the reason the man had given for the sexual assault was that she was “too sexy” even though she was wearing a tracksuit at the time.
Ms Justice Clarke said she would like to think the woman would secure real damages in the case. The judge was told by defending counsel his understanding was that, arising largely from the incident, the marriage relationship was over. The title to a number of residential properties were vested in his wife and the defendant had no title.
“He has family law rights,” said the judge. Defence counsel replied that he was not instructed in those proceedings and he didn’t presume to say that he does or he doesn’t.
