Father of baby girl found not guilty of cruelty and assault

Prosecution had alleged the baby had been shaken by accused, but he claimed he lied to social workers so that the child would remain with one of her parents

The prosecution claimed that the circumstantial evidence pointed inescapably to the infant’s 31-year-old father, but the defence said there was a hole in the middle of the prosecution in the shape of the baby’s absent mother. File picture: Larry Cummins

The seven women and five men of the jury in the trial related to cruelty to a six-month-old girl have found her 31-year-old father not guilty of assault and cruelty.

Moments after Judge Dermot Sheehan told them that instead of unanimous verdicts, they could reach verdicts by a 10-2 or 11-1 majority, they came back to Courtroom 5 at Cork Circuit Criminal Court and delivered not guilty verdicts to cruelty and assault causing serious harm.

Earlier, they had found him not guilty on the third charge — the lesser of the two assault counts — assault causing harm.

Their verdicts came on Friday at the end of a trial that ran for two weeks, in which the prosecution alleged that the baby was shaken by her father, causing her serious injuries. He stated in evidence that he never shook the child.

The prosecution claimed that the circumstantial evidence pointed inescapably to the infant’s 31-year-old father, but the defence said there was a hole in the middle of the prosecution in the shape of the baby’s absent mother.

Jane Hyland, prosecution senior counsel, said the accused was saying in the witness box that the six-month-old drank her bottle, ate porridge, and fell off to sleep without difficulty on the morning of January 4, 2021, when he was minding her and that all of her injuries occurred ‘spontaneously’.

Injuries outlined in court

The prosecutor outlined the injuries, including bleeding to the retina of both eyes, brain haemorrhage, deep soft tissue injuries to the back of her neck, and blood going down the baby’s spine from the top to the base.

He replied that he was not saying they occurred spontaneously.

Ms Hyland said: “They happened because you shook her.”

He replied: “No, I did not shake her at all.” 

She reminded him of what he told one social worker: “You told her you don’t know what came over you, you picked (baby) out of the cot and shook her back and forth… It is the only explanation that fits.”

He replied: “I don’t think it fits.”

Regarding why he confessed to dropping the child twice and shaking her on two other occasions, when he was now saying that none of these four incidents happened, he said in the witness box: “We were told that as soon as one of us (him or the child’s mother) admitted doing something, they would work on reuniting her with the other parent.”

Ms Hyland said: “You have told so many lies.”

He replied: “I have been lied to as well.”

Ray Boland, defence senior counsel, said the prosecution was alleging that the baby was perfectly healthy on the morning of January 4, 2021, and that they should then look at the period when the defendant was alone with the baby that day.

Query over medical evidence

But he argued: “Where is the medical evidence? Where is the evidence about how long it would take for a bleed to come on the brain after being shaken? Where is the evidence of that? There is none.”

Mr Boland said that a huge missing piece in the prosecution's case is the absence of the defendant’s then partner and mother of the baby.

“It is a huge (mother’s name)-shaped hole in the case. Does (mother's name) look like a person who would shake a baby? We don’t know. And we don’t know why the DPP did not bring her,” he said.

The acquittal on the assault causing harm charge was unanimous.

Where there is an acquittal after a jury has been told that a majority decision is sufficient, it is not revealed whether the verdicts on those charges are unanimous or, if not, by what margin the majority decision was reached.