‘House of Horrors’: Brothers Forced To Abuse Sister Receive Sentences

The two brothers have received fully suspended sentences.

Two brothers who grew up in a “house of horrors” in the midlands, involving the rape, anal rape, sexual assault and sexual exploitation of child relatives, including the two accused, have received suspended sentences for the defilement of their younger sister in what a judge has labelled “a horrific family tragedy”.

The brothers, aged in their 20s, cannot be named due to the nature of the offences.

They appeared before Judge Kenneth Connolly and a jury of 11 earlier this year, charged with various counts of defilement of a child under the age of 15, on dates unknown between September 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015.

The younger brother was found guilty of two counts of sex with a child under 15.

He was found not guilty of two further counts of sex with a child.

The older brother was found guilty of one count of anally penetrating a child under the age of 15.

He was found not guilty, by order of the trial judge, on one count of sex with the child.

At the time of the offences, the brothers were aged 14 to 15 and 13 to 14, while their sister, the victim, was aged ten to 11.

The age of criminal responsibility is 12.

At a sentence hearing before Longford Circuit Court, Michael O’Higgins SC, for the younger of the two brothers, told the court that his client “unreservedly apologises for making an already very difficult situation for his sister worse”.

He said that the level of exploitation of the children by their father and uncle is “incomprehensible”, the evidence in the trial was “extremely graphic” and “the nature of exploitation of the children crossed all sorts of boundaries”.

The defence did not dispute that sexual intercourse took place, but led a defence of duress due to “significant familial sexual abuse within the immediate and wider family”.

The conduct was encouraged and normalised by their father and their uncle who went so far as to threaten to beat the boys if they refused to sexually abuse their sister.

Dara Foynes SC, for the older of the two brothers, said that it would be an understatement to describe the family as dysfunctional.

In fact, she previously suggested to the court that the children’s father and uncle were “using these children as some sort of sex toys”.

That uncle, to whom the judge referred as “dastardly and insidious”, is currently serving a number of consecutive sentences amounting to 26 years in prison for the rape of various child relatives during what Mr O’Higgins called his “35-year reign as a pedophile”.

During thet trial, Detective Sergeant Paul Carney confirmed to Ms Fionnuala O’Sullivan, Senior Counsel for the state, that those relatives included four nieces and the man’s own sister, as well as the injured party at the centre of this trial, whom he anally raped in the dugout of a GAA pitch while he was on bail, awaiting trial for the previous child rapes.

The court heard that there are also allegations that the children’s father had sexually abused them, while also “pimping” his daughter, to be used by her “insidious uncle”, who had handed over money in exchange for the opportunity.

The father was arrested just two weeks after his sons’ trial, and charged with child rape, attempted child rape, and child cruelty, as well as coercive control of, and threats to kill or cause serious harm to his former partner.

During the trial, the children’s mother told the court that the man was abusive and that “a dirty look was all it took” to instill fear.

Another uncle of the children died in prison while serving a ten-year sentence for the rape, sexual assault and sexual exploitation of a nephew.

It was that nephew who first reported abuse within the family, setting off a domino effect of complaints from other abused relatives.

Much of the abuse took place at the family home, the court heard.

On one occasion, when the girl was locked into her uncle’s room, the children’s grandmother tried to intervene but her son shouted “mind your business, ya auld c***”, and continued his abuse of the child.

Both of the accused told Gardaí that they had seen their uncle anally raping their sister beside the turf shed at the family home.

However, when they went and told their father what was happening, he did nothing.

When it was put to him by Gardaí at a later date, he said he knew that “something” had happened, but gave no further detail.

He ignored Garda warnings to stop bringing the children around to that house.

“This is a unique and particular tragedy that has been visited on all participants in this case, most particularly the victim,” said Judge Connolly when sentencing the two brothers.

“But there is no doubt in my mind that the two accused are themselves victims of this horrific family tragedy.

To say the background of the family is dysfunctional is a shocking understatement, such was the level of abuse that permeated their life.

“They have been the victims of the most horrific sexual, physical and verbal abuse.

The entire ‘protective’ circle was a horror of dysfunction and sexual abuse,” he said, adding that the court’s sentence will reflect all of those “utterly unique circumstances”.

He noted the nature of the defilement in the case of both brothers, as well as the effect their abuse had on the victim who delivered what Judge Connolly said was “a very compelling victim impact statement”.

“Most days I sit down and cry,” the young woman said in her statement, which she read via video link at a sentence hearing in July.

“I don’t get why they would do this. I had to leave home. The boys got to stay. I did nothing wrong. I lost my family because of them. I lost my childhood. I got very angry with them. They shouldn’t have done what they did.

“You put me through hell,” she added, becoming emotional. “You’ll never know the things I had to go through. I was your little sister. You took a normal life away from me. Do you even feel sorry for what you did? Do you even feel guilty? I’m so glad I was finally brave enough to speak up about what happened.”

In sentencing, Judge Connolly referred to the 2020 decision of Mr Justice Edwards in the case of DPP versus MR.

That ruling established that the court must grant a discount during sentencing if a psychological impairment is present and reduces the defendant's culpability for committing the offence.

Judge Connolly set a pre-discounted, headline sentence of six years and four months imprisonment on the older of the two brothers, and eight years for the younger brother.

Taking into account their intellectual disabilities, he reduced those sentences to three years and five years respectively, before mitigation.

The offences occurred against a background of “utter dysfunction”, Judge Connolly noted.

“This was a house of horrors or sexual abuse with family members. Persons who might have been considered protective, such as their grandmother, could not be blamed as they seemed to be living in a sphere of terror.

“There was very substantial sexual, physical and verbal abuse. Both accused were victims of significant abuse. They lived in a horrific situation of terror and ongoing abuse.

“They were under extreme duress. There was active encouragement, and pressure - perhaps extreme pressure - to commit the offending.

Tusla were involved over many years, but they failed to intervene appropriately until the girl was removed from the family at the age of 13 in 2017.”

He noted that both brothers had expressed “very substantial remorse” and have offered apologies.

The older of the two has no previous convictions, as does the younger, but he has amassed subsequent convictions.

“One has to take a very unique approach to this case despite the very serious nature of the offending,” said Judge Connolly.

He proceeded to reduce the sentences from three years to 18 months, and from five years to two years and six months respectively, before suspending the sentences in their entirety, with a number of conditions, including that they engage with counselling services.

“The offending was very serious, but the court has to consider whether justice would be served by imposing an immediate custodial sentence,” he said, concluding that it would not.