Longford Circuit Court jury returns guilty verdict on brothers accused of defilement of sister

After 10 days of evidence in Longford Circuit Court the jury in the trial of two young men accused of the sexual abuse of their sister found the defendants guilty of three of six charges.

The defendants, who cannot be named, were before Judge Kenneth Connolly accused of the defilement of a child under the age of 15 contrary to Section 2 of the Criminal law sexual offence on days unknown between September 1, 2014 and June 30 2015 at a named location in which they engaged in sexual intercourse with the child.

Barristers Michael O'Higgins SC, for the younger brother, and Dara Foynes SC, for the older brother, accepted that the sexual offence had taken place, but entered a defence of duress.

The older brother initially faced two counts, while the younger brother was charged with four counts of defilement.

In the background of the case before the court was what the trial judge described as “a family calamity of abuse where adults turned a blind eye and a deaf ear” to the abuse.

Also Read: Revealed: The local roads in Longford that will benefit from €10.2 million funding

This statement related to an uncle who raped the injured party in this case and allegations of a father taking money from his brother to facilitate the rape of the 10 year old child.

The defendant's legal representatives said their clients, now young men in their early 20s, were 12 and 14 at the time and committed the acts under the duress of the uncle who is convicted of a series of sex assaults on minors and a father under investigation for similar sex offences.

They asked the jury to consider if the two defendants were “compelled into the commission of the offence by adults” and “genuinely felt under threat of serious physical violence or death so great to overpower”.

In her closing argument State Prosecutor, Fionnuala O'Sullivan SC, asked the jury to look beyond the video interview of the little 14 year old girl shown as part of the evidence: “Your decision cannot be made because you feel sorry for the victim or the two men who were children at the time,” she said.

Ms O'Sullivan said any intellectual disabilities do not “absolve criminal liability” and stated that it was not a defence that the accused had been raped themselves.

Before the jury commenced deliberation Ms Foynes and Mr Higgins highlighted the “moderate general learning difficulties”, the “low functional ability” identified in primary school psychological assessments and the “very dysfunctional” family circumstances.

Also Read: Forgotten county? Longford received only nine IDA site visits inside three years

Mr O'Higgins spoke of the father who “ran the house with an iron fist”, and asked: “What father would beat and coerce his child into having sex with another one of his children?”

Ms Foynes said the defence of duress was “not a defence of convenient excuse” and asked the jury to pay particular attention to the age of the defendants and the victim at the time: “They were kids, they were all just kids.”

In charging the jury Judge Connolly described a “difficult case” stemming from a “horrible, hostile and grim environment”.

The judge directed that the jury must lay aside prejudice and sympathy, adding that they “cannot be influenced by the consequence of their decision”.

The jury deliberated for three hours and 19 minutes, and posed a number of queries for the judge on the definition of coercion and duress.

Also Read: Longford Garda leaves the army for a more community based role

The jury, reduced to 11 members early in the trial, was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, and with the consent of the defence and prosecution Judge Connolly allowed for a return of a 10 to 1 majority verdict.

Just before 1pm on Friday the foreperson of the jury indicated that the younger brother was found guilty on the first two charges of defilement of a child under the age of 15, but not guilty of the second two charges.

The older brother was found not guilty by direction of the trial judge on one count, and guilty of the second charge by the jury.

The judge's direction was imposed due to a gap in the evidence.

Ms Foynes requested that a “full psychological work up” be undertaken as the focus will be different given the defendants' conviction. The prosecution made no request to have the two young men remand in custody.

Concluding the case that was “difficult for everyone involved” Judge Connolly indicated he would adjourn matters to July 15, 2025 to allow time for the preparation of the psychological reports.

Also Read: Excitement building for the upcoming Longford Lights festival

Mr O'Higgins asked the judge if he could prioritise Probation Services engagement with his client so “some State body was available to act as a listening post” adding he was “anxious there is a support structure in place” for the younger brother. The older of the two defendants is in assisted living.

Judge Connolly commended the defendants saying they were “extremely courteous throughout proceedings”. He said the State would “prioritise first contact” to let the defendants know “support is available”.

After the judge adjourned the matter to July 15 for sentencing and the preparation of the psychological reports Mr O'Higgins thanked the prosecution for the latitude they extended to present the case.