A garda who interviewed one of the alleged sexual assault victims of a childcare worker has said the girl would not have been interviewed if any concern had been expressed by her parents.
Garda Ciara Holmes also rejected defence counsel Seán Guerin SC’s suggestion that gardaí were engaged in a “form-filling, box-ticking charade” and not considering the interests of the child they were interviewing.
Garda Holmes was giving evidence on Tuesday in the trial of the 29-year-old man, who has pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to 23 counts of sexually assaulting four girls at a Leinster creche on dates between February 2015 and December 2016. No parties in the case can be named to protect the identity of the complainants.
The specialist garda was giving evidence on interview practices during the investigation, particularly in relation to the second complainant.
The court has heard this girl, who was then aged six, declined to take part in a recorded interview on December 22nd, 2016. Specialist gardaí visited her home on December 29th, 2016 and the girl gave an interview that was recorded on January 4th, 2017.
Garda Holmes told the court that she visited the girl’s home with Garda Louise Curtin on December 29th, 2016 to meet the girl for the first time and her parents.
‘Scary’
During that meeting, the girl told the gardaí she found the interview suite “scary” and she “had to talk to the guards”, the trial heard.
Garda Holmes agreed that she gave the girl “reassurance” that she had done nothing wrong.
Mr Guerin put it to Garda Holmes that she “didn’t even have the decency” to ask the child if she was “willing” to talk on the next occasion. He said notes taken from that day said the girl was asked: ‘Are you going to talk the next day?’
Garda Holmes said she could not remember how she phrased the question. She said if the child was any way concerned or “traumatised” that would have been noticed.
In relation to the child taking part in the interview, she said Garda Curtin was in contact with the child’s mother to ensure there was no concern about her daughter meeting gardaí on January 4th.
“If there had been any concern expressed by the parents that (the girl) shouldn’t have met with us the second time, that interview wouldn’t have been conducted,” she said.
Garda Holmes said she was looking at the child and noting her body language.
“She was not traumatised or scared by it,” she said.
Not present
The court heard that the girl’s parents were not present in the room when she said she “had” to talk to gardaí, that it was scary and that she was afraid she was in trouble.
Garda Holmes said she would have informed the parents of this.
“If the child has expressed fear, not wanting to talk to An Garda Síochána, that is not something I’m going to keep from their parents or guardian,” she said. “I wouldn’t be doing my job.”
She agreed there were no notes of this conversation with the parents, but rejected it was therefore “unlikely” to have happened.
“Conversations can take place that are not noted,” she said.
Mr Guerin also took the court through a decision-making log recorded by the specialist investigators in relation to their interactions with the child and her family.
It noted: “IP (injured party) wishes to speak to SIs (special investigators).”
“It would have been a much more accurate reflection if you recorded in the decision-making log that the child felt ‘obliged’ to participate in the interview,” Mr Guerin said.
“That’s the view she expressed,” Garda Holmes replied.
She also rejected Mr Guerin’s assertion that the decision-making log was “nothing more than a form-filling, box-ticking charade” and not “considering carefully the interests of the child”.
The trial continues.