Deaf woman's evidence-in-chief concludes in familial sex abuse case

The initial evidence of a deaf woman whose allegations have led to the trial of seven men accused of familial abuse has concluded, the Central Criminal Court has been told.  

Seven men, who are aged between 32 and 55, have pleaded not guilty to a combined total of 103 charges against them. They deny all the charges against them.

The primary complainant, who is deaf, was giving evidence in Court on Thursday, December 18 in relation to a younger brother who is accused of sexually abusing her over three years.

The woman has already given evidence in relation to the six other accused men – her three uncles and three brothers - who she alleges sexually abused her.

This brother, Accused F, (32), has denied five counts: three counts of anal rape and two counts of raping his sister on dates between 2007 and 2010

The seven men are accused of a total of 98 counts of sexually abusing this complainant at various stages over a 17-year period between 1996 and 2013. They deny any wrongdoing.

Roisin Lacey SC, prosecuting, told the court on Thursday afternoon that the woman has finished giving her evidence-in-chief.

Addressing the jury, Ms Justice Caroline Biggs said that this was an appropriate point for a break.

The judge said that the court had been advised that preparatory work for the next stage of the process would take place during the three-week break. She asked jurors to return on January 12.

She thanked jurors for their patience and concentration and wished them a happy Christmas.

The woman has been giving her evidence via video-link and through two interpreters – an Irish Sign Language (ISL) interpreter and a deaf relay – as well as an intermediary who is a linguistics expert.

There are also two interpreter monitoring teams present in court to ensure the woman is being interpreted correctly.

Charts and symbols are also being used to assist the woman to communicate, with the court hearing earlier in the trial that she has challenges communicating timelines in terms of calendars and sequence.

Earlier Thursday, the woman said her brother put his penis in her vagina in his bedroom when she was 17.

She said she didn’t want him to do it.

She said he did the same thing again in another bedroom when she was 18. She said she told him she didn’t want it, and he told her not to tell their mother or his girlfriend.

When asked if there was anything more she wished to tell the jury about what her brother did to her, the woman replied: “Nothing.”

Accused A – the woman's 55-year-old uncle - is accused of a single count of raping her on a date between December 2009 and April 2011.

Accused B (48) – another uncle - is accused of eight counts comprising rape, oral rape and anal rape of the complainant on dates between December 2008 and December 2010. He has denied the charges.

Three of her younger brothers are also accused of sexually abusing her over varying periods of time.

Accused C (34) is accused of 45 counts – 22 of rape and 23 counts of anally raping her over a 12- year period between 2001 and 2013.

Accused D (33) is accused of 22 counts of sexually abusing his sister over an 11-year period on dates between 2002 and 2013. He has pleaded not guilty to 19 charges of rape and three counts of anal rape.

Accused E (32) is accused of 16 counts of sexual abuse against his sister over an eight-year period between 2003 and 2011. He has denied nine counts of anal rape and seven counts of raping her.

Another uncle, Accused G (45), has denied a single count of raping her on a date between 1996 and 1997.

Accused C is further charged with the sexual abuse of two of his younger sisters. He is charged with one count of sexual assault in relation to one sister, Complainant 2, on a date between 2005 and 2006 when she was a child. He is also charged with two counts of rape and one of anal rape of this woman on dates between 2016 and 2019.

He is also charged with one count of anally raping a third sister, Complainant 3, on dates between 2013 and 2014.

None of the parties involved can be named for legal reasons. The trial judge has directed that a specific location in relation to these allegations cannot be reported.