Father who used son as theft accomplice ordered to pay compensation

A father who got his teenage son to act as an accomplice in the theft of nearly €4,000 worth of copper cabling has been ordered by a judge to pay compensation.

Judge Clare Leonard criticised the father saying he was responsible for the boy facing a conviction and she added that he must “bear the brunt of the responsibility.”

The boy (aged 16) has pleaded guilty at the Children’s Court to trespassing and theft of €3,800 worth of copper cabling at an Eircom depot, on Santry Avenue, in north Dublin, on June 18, 2008. He was aged 15 at the time.

The court also heard that another accomplice, also a minor, was dealt with by a caution through the Juvenile Liaison Office, a youth crime diversion programme run by the Gardai. The boy's father is also facing prosecution separately in the adult courts.

Defence solicitor Sarah Molloy said today that earlier in the case a full compensation order had been made against the boy's father and so far €500 had been paid.

However, she cited section 113 of the 2001 Children Act, which states that when the court is ordering a parent to pay compensation for their child's crime it must “have regard to the present and future means of the parent or guardian.”

That section of the legislation also states that “for that purpose the court may require the parent or guardian to give evidence as to those means and his or her financial commitments.”

Ms Molloy said the teen's father was also facing prosecution as a result of the theft but his family was of limited means. She said there were several children in the family and the boy's mother had health problems.

“In addition there was a previous feud as a result of which they lost their caravan.”

Ms Molloy said that the boy's father had to take out a loan to buy a new one and was in “difficult financial circumstances.”

However, Judge Leonard said that “in that event his father cannot afford to be engaging in this sort of activity. I would not think it appropriate that he would get away free and lightly.”

The judge said that it was not satisfactory that the teenager would have a criminal record “because of his father.”

In relation to paying compensation, Ms Molloy said that the boy's father had health problems which has made it difficult for him to find work. She also submitted that the Probation Service has been assisting the teenage defendant in relation to obtaining training or employment.

Judge Leonard adjourned sentencing the boy until June for the father “to try and put some money together.” “Obviously, he is the adult here, and is the person who has to bear the brunt of the responsibility.”

She also that if the compensation was not paid in full, a hearing may have to be held, under section 113 of the Children Act, to ascertain whether or not the father has the necessary means.