“Supreme Court Rejects Exorcism Beating Appeal”

A father involved in severe “exorcism” punishments on his nine-year-old daughter, resulting in disastrous brain damage, had his second appeal for his conviction and incarceration dismissed. The Supreme Court decreed that the 2021 jury’s ruling convicting the father of two severe assault charges and three counts of child mistreatment be maintained. The parents, both found guilty of the same charges, received 14-year prison sentences.

The father’s challenge to his conviction and the duration of his sentence was heard. Despite sustaining the conviction, the Court of Appeal lessened the father’s 14-year sentence to 13 years.

The trial for the parents detailed how the girl was subjected to brutal physical abuse – including beatings with a belt and stick, choking, biting, and extensive burns – from June 28th to July 2nd, 2019.

The girl had arrived in Ireland together with another sister in March 2019, joining their family originally from North Africa. It came to light during the trial that the parents thought their daughter harboured a demon, or “jinn”, and made attempts to exorcise her.

The trial discovered that though the father participated in the abuses, there was no proof of his involvement when the mother induced the devastating brain damage on the child on July 2nd, 2019, as he had been occupied at work since dawn that day.

His appeal presentation posited that his absence from the home on the day and his ignorance about the incident until much later that day, indicated he couldn’t have had a chance to change the resulting brain damage by summoning medical help. His legal representation contended that this didn’t align with the concept of a “joint enterprise” in a criminal act. The Court of Appeal, however, dismissed this argument.

In his continued plea to a panel of five Supreme Court judges, the primary query was if the man was liable for his spouse’s actions, which resulted in a brain injury, and if there was enough evidence to lead the jury towards a guilty verdict on this charge and a separate charge related to the child’s burning injuries.

Justice Peter Charleton, representing the Supreme Court, mentioned that the question posed to the court was about the father’s physical absence during the severe attack enacted on his daughter by his wife on July 2nd and whether this fact lessened his conviction for the offence of causing significant harm.

The key question raised was whether he could be held accountable for the crime by partaking in multiple assaults immediately prior to the main event, mediated by a mutual strategy between him and his wife, the adjudicator commented.

Without prolonging the issue any further, the answer stands as ‘yes’, he affirmed. Charleton established that there was no cause to challenge the jury’s judgement and accordingly, he rebuffed the appeal.

Condividi