Suspended sentence for man who exposed himself to young girl at family party

A man in his 20s who exposed his penis to a five-year-old at a children’s party in May 2024 has been given a fully suspended prison sentence to allow him to continue with his rehabilitation and will not be placed on the sex offenders register.

However, Judge Kenneth Connolly has expressed concern at the man's “high risk of reoffending”, and warned him that, should he “step out of line” at any time over the five year suspension period, he will face a custodial sentence.

The man, who cannot be named in order to protect the identity of his victim, appeared before Roscommon Circuit Court where evidence was heard of how he attended a children’s party at the home of a family member in May of 2024.

He came forward on a signed guilty plea and first appeared before the court in March, where he affirmed his plea of guilt to the charge of exposing his genitals to a five-year-old girl on May 11, 2024.

Detective Garda Donal McDermott told Sean O’Quigley, BL, prosecuting on behalf of the State, that the girl’s mother reported that one of her daughters had told her that “the boy” had shown her his penis in a bedroom upstairs while they were attending a party.

On foot of the complaint, an investigation was launched with a specialist interview held with the child in July 2024. The accused man was subsequently arrested, interviewed and made no comment.

In a victim impact statement read out to the court, the child’s mother said that the party “should have been a happy and safe event” but that the man’s actions on that day have “changed the way we parent our children”, and the way they view situations and people they once trusted.

She said her child was scared and expressed a fear of “what might have happened if she’d been younger, less confident or unable to run away and tell someone”.

The woman said it was “impossible” to know if her daughter will remember the incident in the future but said she will be able to tell her “that we did everything in our power to ensure that (the accused) is held accountable for his actions”.

“Our hope is that by bringing this man before the court, no other child or family will have to go through something similar,” she said.

Patrick O’Sullivan, BL, for the accused, put it to Det Gda McDermott that his client was “involved in an act of self-gratification” when the child walked into the bedroom.

Judge Connolly, reading from a probation report furnished on behalf of the accused noted that the man’s own account of events was that he “had a lot of alcohol consumed” and that he “suffers from anxiety and intrusive thoughts”.

As a result, he went to an unoccupied bedroom and engaged in “an act of self-gratification” during which the child walked in, saw him and immediately left. He “accepts recklessness on his part”, Judge Connlly noted.

He expressed his concern that, despite pleading guilty to exposing his penis to the child, the accused went to the probation officer and “rewrote the narrative completely to almost an accidental occurrence”.

“That is a very significant step back from his plea of guilty and if I was the parents of this child I think that would perturb me enormously that it was played back to such an extent,” said Judge Connolly.

In mitigation, Mr O’Sullivan referred to a psychiatric report which noted his client was experiencing “psychological distress and emotional dysregulation” around the time of the offence.

“He has demonstrated improvement and remains clinically stable,” said Mr O’Sullivan, adding that his client had spent some time in hospital following the offence, due to mental health issues.

He also put it to the court that the accused had “demonstrated insight and remorse for the harm caused to the victim” and “took full responsibility for his actions”.

He said his client was of “medium risk of reoffending”, but stated a lot of factors had not been taken into account within the probation report, including his psychological and psychiatric improvement.

Judge Connolly, however, noted that the probation report actually assessed him at high risk of “sexual offence reconviction”, medium risk of “non-sexual violent offence reconviction”, but “moderate risk of reoffending”, which he said is “very complicated”.

Mr O’Sullivan again stated there were “an awful lot of factors that haven’t been taken into account” and that “only in time will speak for themselves”.

Since this incident, the accused has not come to the attention of the Gardaí and has dealt with the case “very openly”, he said, outlining how the DPP initially directed summary disposal on a guilty plea, but the District Court judge refused jurisdiction.

“At that stage, we indicated we’d be going forward on a signed plea. He did absolutely everything he possibly could to make life easier for everybody including himself,” said Mr O’Sullivan.

The man is still engaged in therapy and “is doing exceptionally well”, he added. He was homeless at one stage and got into structured accommodation. He is now living alone with the support of family and friends.

Taking to the witness box, the accused man apologised for his actions, stating he was asked to come down for a family event because “they trusted me and thought I deserved a chance to go down and be with family”.

“Looking back on everything and the destruction it caused, it does break my heart that I’ve wrecked another part of my life down to my incapability of asking for help or addressing my addiction issues,” he said.

“But I do remember when I was younger, (the victim’s mother) used to mind me when I went down and I remember them as some of the best times of my summers. And now to be sitting here and realise the harm I’ve done to this family that looked after me, I do apologise very sincerely.”

When passing judgement, Judge Connolly said the apology was one of “self-pity”, but he accepted it as genuine remorse.

The man has one previous conviction for drink-driving in August 2022, for which he was fined €200 and disqualified from driving for two years.

“I want to say straight up that this is a matter that worries me greatly and worries me significantly,” said Judge Connolly, adding that even if it was a case that was “confined to the bizarre, somewhat sanitised version of events given to the probation officer”, it was still “troubling and utterly distorted to put it very mildly indeed”.

The fact that it happened at a children’s party “makes it extremely sinister indeed”, he said, adding that he “can’t be satisfied at this juncture that he won’t find himself in this type of situation again”.

“I worry enormously that he will find himself in some sort of sinister situation, unless he continues to seek very, very significant help,” he said.

He again noted it as an aggravating factor that, given he was aware of the complainant’s version of events, “which was very cogent for a five-year-old”, and then pleaded guilty to that offence, that he then told the probation officer a completely different story.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, which Judge Connolly said was “quite modest, given the effects that this type of behaviour can have”.

“This occurred at a children’s party, to which the accused, then a 22-year-old adult, had been invited as a person of trust. It is simply an egregious breach of that trust that he did what he did, even if it was confined to the sanitised version he gave to the probation officer. It’s utterly unacceptable and repugnant and has to be marked by a very serious penalty,” said Judge Connolly.

He also noted that the accused was known to the family of the victim, that there was a “very, very substantial age difference”, the findings of the probation officer regarding his risk of reoffending, and the effects his actions have had on the victim and her family.

“We’re all entitled to live in a situation of trust and security. I say it to parents all the time that when their children get hurt, it’s not their fault, it is clearly and solely the fault of the person who chooses to perpetrate violence against children, as the accused did,” he said.

He fixed a headline sentence of 18 months, which he reduced to 12 months with such mitigating factors as a signed guilty plea, an “extreme pattern of rehabilitation” and an apology made in court.

“The offending is so serious that it does warrant an immediate custodial term. But to impose an immediate custodial term would put a complete stop to his life, rehabilitation, retraining. I think he deserves one opportunity to demonstrate he can be pro-social,” said Judge Connolly.

“The second reason is my concern that he is at high risk of reoffending and I want him to know if he steps out of line at any time over the next five years he will face a custodial sentence.”

The sentence was suspended for five years, subject to a number of conditions, including that he refrain from all drugs and alcohol, that he submit himself to the supervision of the probation service for a period of one year, and that he have no unsolicited contact with the victim’s family for life.

Mr O'Quigley informed the court that the sex offenders register "does not apply" in this case, which Judge Connolly noted "would be in ease of his employment in the future".