A man who raped his two younger sisters in the 1970s cannot be identified because he was a child at the time of the offending, the High Court has ruled.
The man, who is in his 60s, was convicted after a trial at the Central Criminal Court of 16 offences including three of rape, one attempted rape, and 10 indecent assaults on various dates between October 1971 and November 1973.
The two victims were aged 13 and 11 when the man began abusing them.
John Berry, defending, told Judge Eileen Creedon his client was aged between 14 and 16 when the offending he was convicted of began.
READ MORE
The younger sister first went to gardaí in 2002, when the defendant was aged 45, after she learned he had been arrested for an offence of production of child pornographic material.
She made a statement of complaint but later withdrew this and there was no further development until 2019 when the younger victim, her sister, went to gardaí.
In his application to prevent publication of his client’s identity, Berry told the judge he was relying on the May 2025 Supreme Court ruling in the case of DPP vs Doe.
The Supreme Court found a court could make an order granting anonymity to a defendant where it found that “blameworthy delay, resulting in the bringing of charges after the accused has reached the age of 18, has created a situation where the accused individual will be exposed to serious public odium”.
Berry said he was asserting there was culpable delay in the prosecution of the charges against his client.
Marc Murphy, prosecuting, said the Director of Public Prosecutions was taking “a neutral position” with respect to the defence application but told the court both complainants “wish to waive their anonymity”.
Creedon granted the defence application and made an order he cannot be named in reporting of the case as he was a minor at the time of the offending.
The man, who pleaded not guilty to all the charges, does not accept the jury verdicts. The court heard that in the mid-1990s he told the two sisters he was sorry for the things he had done to them as children and asked them to forgive him.
Creedon noted the man “issued various threats about what would happen to her younger sister, if she told anyone” about his abuse of her.
She said the women had delivered “very powerful victim-impact statements” which outlined the physical violation of them as children and the mental trauma they have suffered as a result. She commended them for their bravery and dignity throughout the court process.
Creedon said she had to make allowance for the fact he was a child at the time of the offending and set an initial “headline” sentence of 7½ years.
She said he could not benefit from mitigation for pleading guilty nor has he expressed remorse. She took into account the fact that he has not offended for a long period of time, was generally co-operative with the investigation, and had a difficult upbringing.
Creedon imposed a sentence of seven years for the rape offences and attempted rape. She imposed a two-year concurrent term for the sexual assault offences. The final year of the seven-year term was suspended on strict conditions.
