Day 2 of Trial:  Man Denies Child Sexual Assault As Grand Court Hears Family Evidence and Police Interview

By Alric Lindsay

On Tuesday, members of a young girl’s family have given evidence on the second day of a Grand Court trial in which a man is accused of a series of sexual offences against her, contrary to sections 132 and 132A of the Penal Code. Three family witnesses were called in turn — the child’s grandmother, her aunt, and her mother. The questioning was shared between Crown Counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Defence Counsel Keith Myers, who cross-examined and put the most extensive questions.

The grandmother

The court heard from the child’s grandmother about the family background and what had followed the child’s disclosure. She told the court that the girl regularly stayed with the family, and that she reported the incident to the police after the child spoke. “I’m her grandmother,” she said, “and she said it happened — I believe her.”

Cross-examining, Defence Counsel Myers explored issues within the family. He asked the grandmother about a voice message from the child’s mother, who had said she had taken the girl to a doctor who found nothing wrong and had then cut off contact; the grandmother said she had reported the matter because she did not believe it had otherwise been reported.

Myers put it to her that the child’s mother believed a relative had wanted to take the girl away — a suggestion the grandmother rejected, saying the family had acted only to protect the child. He also put to her that the family witnesses’ evidence rested entirely on the truth of what the child had told them: that if the child had told the truth, their evidence was true, and if she had not, the evidence was not true.

The aunt

The court then heard from the child’s aunt — the relative in whom the child had first confided. The aunt told the court that the child had raised the matter herself, while they were getting ready for bed.

When the aunt asked the child what she meant, she said, the child said a man tried to kiss her on the mouth. Subsequently, the aunt described a family meeting taking place, where the child repeated what she had said. The family left understanding that the child’s mother would deal with the matter, and when they did not hear back and grew concerned, they reported it themselves to the child-protection service. “We wanted her mother to deal with it,” she said, “but … we had to report it.”

In cross-examination, Myers questioned the aunt about the detail of her account — among other things, whether she had encountered the man before, what the child had been wearing, and the sequence and timing of events — and about the family’s decision to report the matter when they did.

The mother

When the child’s mother’s took the stand, she was challenged by Defence Counsel Myers.  Myers questioned her about her response when she first learned of the allegation, putting to her that she had not, at first, believed her daughter and asking why she had not gone to the police herself. The mother said she had been in shock — describing it as the first time anything like this had happened to her child — and said that she did believe her daughter. She said she had taken the girl to a doctor.  Myers also questioned why the child had spoken about the matter to other members of the family rather than to her.

The police evidence and the defendant’s interview

Later in the day, agreed statements from two police officers were read to the jury, and the jury was played the defendant’s recorded police interview, conducted under caution with his lawyer present.

In the interview, the officer put the allegation to him — that over a period in 2023 he had sexually assaulted the child at his home — and asked him directly whether he had done so. Asked whether he had sexually assaulted the child, whether he had penetrated her with his finger, and whether he had put his tongue on her, he answered “No” to each question.

As the recorded interview continued, the officer then put the child’s account to him in detail — that he had repeatedly switched the light on and off, stood by the bed, touched her and penetrated her with his finger, put his tongue on her and tried to kiss her, and that she had told him to stop. He denied it. Asked whether he was attracted to young children, he answered “No,” and he suggested that the child had not told the truth.

Because the complainant is a child and the case concerns sexual offences, nothing that could identify her directly or indirectly, the witnesses or the location is being reported.

Closing speeches in the trial are expected by Thursday.