A garda has told the High Court she was spurred to take a civil action against her cousin alleging he sexually abused her as a child because she does not want him to harm someone else.
The woman said she is “consumed” by the memories of the alleged sexual assault and oral and digital rape, which are alleged to have occurred on a number of occasions in the man’s bedroom when she was aged between about five and 12 years old.
“I can smell him; I can taste him; I am back in the bedroom… Some days I cannot get out of bed,” she told the court on Wednesday.
It is claimed the man, who was a member of the armed forces, was convicted by a Circuit Criminal Court jury in 2012 of two counts of indecently assaulting her on dates in 1986 and 1987. However, this conviction was quashed in the Criminal Court of Appeal after he had served some or all of his two-year sentence.
In the High Court, the woman is claiming damages for, among other things, alleged sexual and physical abuse and oral and digital rape which she says took place on dates between 1984 and 1992.
All of the claims are denied.
The garda, represented by John P Kehoe BL and Hazel Cloughley Jones BL, instructed by John M Joy solicitors, said her line of work brings with it a responsibility to seek justice, she told Mr Justice Alexander Owens.
“I deal with so many injured parties… I cannot in good conscience sit down with anybody else who has experienced this if I haven’t gone through the experience of bringing him to justice,” she said.
“I also know how important my role is as a sergeant… I make sure I do my job to the highest standard to make sure nobody like him gets off because I’m not doing my job,” she said.
Initially, her priority was taking a criminal case against the man, she said, adding she “got a bit of power back” when 12 members of a jury believed her story.
She claimed she was spurred on to take a civil case because she had thoughts of him “hurting another child the way he hurt me”.
“I want him exposed for who he is and what he has done… He knew what he was doing. I was a child,” she said.
While cross-examining the woman, the man, representing himself, said he did not do what she had alleged. He said her claims cannot be true because the Army had stationed him away from home at the time.
The case continues on Thursday.
