Judge: Lack of DPP explanation ‘hurtful for family’

A High Court judge yesterday said it was extremely hurtful to the family of a brother and sister who were allegedly systematically abused by a neighbour when the DPP did not give a reason why a decision not to prosecute was made.

Mr Justice Michael Moriarty made his comments as he awarded the brother and sister a total of €350,000 damages for the abuse at the hands of their next-door neighbour when they were still at primary school.

Stressing that he was not making observations behind the DPP’s back, Mr Justice Moriarty said there was no doubt from the evidence the pair and their family were demoralised and bewildered when it was indicated no prosecution was to be brought and, according to practice, no reason was given.

Mr Justice Moriarty said it may be there were strong and compelling legal reasons why the DPP was not disposed to initiating a prosecution but it was very hurtful for the family.

He noted that in England and Wales a reason is given in some cases when a decision not to prosecute has been taken.

The High Court had heard the brother and sister had made statements to the gardaí a number of years ago, but the DPP had decided not to bring a prosecution. The judge said he sits in the Court of Criminal Appeal and had heard cases of lesser severity.

Mr Justice Moriarty said not being given a reason for the decision may have been a substantial factor why the brother and sister went to the trouble, expense and trauma of bringing the proceedings in the High Court.

The High Court heard that 24-year old man and the 20-year old woman, had suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the alleged assaults.

Mr Justice Michael Moriarty was told the girl was only seven years of age and the boy 11 when the abuse started in the late 90s and early 2000s. The judge ruled that the names of the victims or anything to identify them cannot be reported.

The action was before the court for assessment of damages only.

Mr Justice Moriarty said it was a “grave and unusual” case concerning allegations of systematic abuse by a neighbour, who was a close family friend.

Damages, the judge said must be substantial and reflect the hideous experience the pair had. He said he was extremely impressed by both of them and described them as articulate, reliable and able and their evidence was truthful as to the “grim events visited on both of them” which he said contained “dispiriting details of the abuse”.

Awarding the 24-year-old man €210,000 the judge said his childhood had been gravely and grossly interfered with. Awarding the 20-year-old girl €140,000 he said she presented as somebody who had made a commendable effort to put the events behind her.

The pair had claimed they suffered personal injury, loss and damage as a result of the negligence and breach of trust of the defendant who committed acts of sexual assault, assault and battery.

Earlier the 24-year-old broke down as he told the judge the abuse will be in his head for the rest of life along with the things he had done to him as a young child. In her evidence the 20-year-old girl said she had fought the man, kicked him and screamed as he had held her down on a blanket in a field and abused her.