Alleged abuse victim denies court 'blackmail' claim

An alleged victim of sexual abuse has denied that he told the accused the allegations could go away but it would cost him.

The complainant also denied that he told the man he would get others to make allegations about him.

He did not accept a suggestion from defence counsel that he effectively sent a blackmailing letter to the man suggesting that if he hands over his share of a successful business and some properties he would let him “off the hook”.

The 75-year-old accused has pleaded not guilty to 19 charges of indecent assault on dates between January 1, 1969 and June 30, 1973 when the complainant was aged between 13 and 17 years old.

He has also pleaded not guilty to 12 charges of rape and one of indecent assault in relation to one female complainant and 14 charges in relation to both rape and indecent assault of a second female complainant on dates between January 1, 1970 and August 31, 1973. The girls were aged between 13 and 16 years old at the time.

The 56-year-old complainant denied that he had made up the allegations, and got other people to make similar accusations about the man because he wanted him to hand over his share of the business.

The man accepted that he had written a letter, which was addressed to himself, the complainant, and given to the accused to sign.

He did not accept a suggestion from Mr Giollaíosa O’Lideadha SC, defending, that “a very reasonable interpretation” of the letter would be that it amounts to blackmail.

The complainant agreed that the letter was dated August 31, 2004, two days after he confronted the man about the abuse.

Mr O’Lideadha read the letter to the jury and said that although it was unsigned, there was a space for the accused to sign, date and time it.

The letter was addressed to the complainant and stated that the accused had reached retirement age and wanted to thank the complainant for their “long association”.

It said that the accused was agreeing to a number of conditions including that the accused hand over his share of a number of properties and his business to the complainant and his wife on the understanding that it exempts him from “all liabilities, legal and personal”, to the complainant and his family.

The complainant refused to accept a suggestion from Mr O’Lideadha that the letter effectively meant, “that you are telling my client if he signs this he would be off the hook from the allegations of abuse against you and your family.”

“No. The letter was to get him away from me and my family,” the complainant replied.

He said that the letter had been written following a number of phone calls between him and the accused and the content of it had effectively been agreed by both.

He did not accept that when the accused rejected the letter and refused to sign it, he, the complainant, knew he was then at risk of being investigated and convicted of blackmail, which was why he then reported the alleged abuse to the gardai.

The complainant earlier rejected a suggestion from Mr O’Lideadha that his testimony in the witness box, which counsel described as “full of feeling, passion and convincing”, had effectively been a performance.

“I did not take that into consideration I came here to tell the truth. There was no stage management here with me,” the complainant said.

The complainant also did not accept a suggestion that through his ownership of the man’s company he would be in position to benefit his family financially and provide them with employment.

He rejected a further suggestion that he was having serious difficulties in his own family and he used these “outrageous allegations” as an explanation for his previous behaviour and in an attempt to salvage his marriage.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Barry White and a jury of seven women and five men.