An Irish broadcaster accused of engaging in sexual acts with a 16-year-old girl over a decade ago has been acquitted following a trial at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
The man (40), who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded not guilty to three counts of engaging in sexual acts with a child under the age of 17 at locations in Dublin on dates between August and December 2010. He was aged 27 at the time.
After deliberating for just under six hours, the jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all counts on Friday after an eight-day trial.
The man appeared anxious, taking deep breaths as the jury entered the courtroom. He stood for the verdicts and appeared overwhelmed by emotion as the registrar asked the jury foreperson if they had reached a verdict on which 10 of them were agreed.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Michael Harding: I went to the cinema to see Small Things Like These. By the time I emerged I had concluded the film was crap
Look inside: 1950s bungalow transformed into modern five-bed home in Greystones for €1.15m
As she read out the verdicts and said “not guilty” after each count, the man’s parents, who were also in court, muttered “thank God”.
Outside the courtroom, the man was embraced by his parents.
The complainant was not present when the verdicts were returned by the jury.
Earlier on Friday morning, the jury gave a note to Judge Pauline Codd after more than five hours of deliberations, indicating that they could not reach a unanimous decision. The judge told jurors the court would accept a majority verdict on which at least 10 of them were agreed.
The prosecution case centred on three alleged instances of sexual contact between the broadcaster and the girl between August and December, 2010, when she was aged 16. She turned 17 in January 2011, thereby reaching the legal age of consent.
The prosecution case was that the man defiled the complainant by having her engage in oral sex with him – once in his workplace and twice at his home.
Eilis Brennan SC, prosecuting, told the jury in her opening address that defilement was an “old fashioned word”, with the legislation intended to “protect children from certain sexual acts when they are under 17″.
In her evidence, the now 29-year-old woman said she met the man on July 11th, 2010, at Oxegen festival.
She said she initially told the man she was 18, but “came clean” that she was 16 by text before their first alleged sexual encounter in August 2010.
She said he told her he was 27 and she was “too young for him”. She said he messaged her later asking if she could keep a secret. She said yes and they continued to talk.
The complainant’s evidence was that the first alleged incident occurred in late August 2010, the first time they met after Oxegen. They ended up in his workplace, and the man kissed her in the building’s stairwell. She told the court he then “gently pushed me down to perform oral sex”.
The woman said the second alleged incident took place at the man’s home on a date between August and December 14th, 2010, during which they performed oral sex and masturbation.
She said he got her tickets for a Deadmaus concert on December 14th, 2010. In the third alleged incident, she said she went to his house before the concert and they again engaged in oral sex and masturbation.
The woman said she continued to meet the man occasionally after her 17th birthday. Their relationship was casual – “never boyfriend and girlfriend” – and they kept in touch on and off over social media for a further 10 years until 2020.
During cross-examination, she remained firm in her evidence that the alleged incidents occurred between August and December 2010 – when she was 16.
The woman agreed with defence counsel Morgan Shelley BL that she couldn’t identify the location of the man’s house.
The man took the stand during his trial and said he met the woman at Oxegen and put his number in her phone. He said she was holding a plastic cup which contained alcohol at the over-17s festival.
He said they met for lunch a couple of weeks after Oxegen, by which time he said she had told him she was 18 over text.
He said she was never at his house, “to the best of my recollection ever”. He said he was working on December 14th, 2010, – the day of the alleged third incident – and that he then went for drinks with a colleague.
The man told the jury he had lunch with the woman on January 24th, 2011. He said he recalled the date because he got braces a few days beforehand, and she said it had been her birthday recently. He made a comment that she was 19, then she said she was actually 17, which he said was a “little bit of a surprise or shock”.
He said they went to his workplace after this lunch but denied being in the stairwell with her. He said he never used the staircase as he was worried about setting off the fire alarm. He denied any sexual interaction with her before her 17th birthday.
During his cross-examination on day five of the trial, he said he “was happy to correct the record” after gardaí confirmed the restaurant where he said they went for lunch in January 2011 had not opened at that time. But he insisted they went for “casual food” on that occasion.
He said the teenager told him she was 18 and interested in media. He said a lot of people had given him advice, and he was “happy to meet her on that basis”.
“We kept in touch. Eventually, there was a physical element to that relationship.”
A garda witness said nine phones were seized during a search of the man’s house on June 7th, 2021. The man provided the PIN numbers for these nine phones to gardaí.
Four of these nine phones required specialist repairs before they could be examined. In total, data was extracted from eight of the nine phones seized at the man’s house. The court heard that woman’s phone from that time was lost.
In their closing speeches, both counsel noted that the woman doesn’t have a grudge against the man and did not say a bad word about him in her evidence.
Counsel for both sides said the jury had been presented with different versions of events and they must consider the credibility of the witnesses.
In her direction to the jury, Judge Codd noted jurors “only have the word” of the complainant that the alleged sexual acts took place because there was no corroborating evidence and they would have to assess the “reliability and truthfulness” of the complainant’s testimony.
She said cases of a historic nature often come down to “one person’s word against another”, as potential evidence which could assist either the prosecution or defence is not available.