Woman sent explicit images of her children to another man

A WOMAN who sent explicit pictures of her children to a man she was in a relationship with was given a fully suspended three-and-a-half-year sentence after the matter was concluded at Monaghan Circuit Criminal Court.

The defendant, who cannot be named, pleaded guilty to knowingly producing and forwarding the images on a date between January 1, 2019 and July 23, 2019, contrary to provisions of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998.

The man with whom she was involved, and to whom the material was sent, had himself been jailed for three years (with the final year suspended) at Cavan Circuit Court last November, for offences including possession and distribution of child pornography in July 2019.

At the Cavan hearing, Judge John Aylmer noted this man was in possession of 779 pornographic images, and the distribution offence was in respect of 15 videos and eight images.

In relation to the female defendant, who was before the April sittings of Monaghan Circuit Court, a detective confirmed to Frank Martin BL, prosecuting, that the man already convicted had been in possession of a considerable quantity of child pornographic material on various devices.

It was when the images on that man’s computer were analysed that the female defendant’s involvement came to light. A number of pictures deemed to be child pornography were identified within ‘WhatsApp’ messages exchanged between the pair.

Nine such images were found on the man’s phone, the garda stated. They were pictures of girls, then not much older than school-going age, and they focused on their genital and lower areas. The girls were the defendant’s own daughters.

It also emerged, when the man’s house was being searched in July 2019, he had phoned the woman to let her know this was happening.

The detective garda confirmed to Mr Martin that the woman’s house was searched in October 2021, and devices were seized. However, no child pornography was found. She had changed her phone and was no longer using the phone she had in 2019.

The lady was arrested in January 2022 and she was co-operative during interview.

The garda confirmed to James McGowan SC, defending, the images referred to in this case had been taken while the children were being bathed, and that the children were, and remain, totally unaware of what happened.

He agreed that Tusla had been involved in the case, and had opted not to take the children from their mother after looking at the case in detail. The woman is still in her relationship with the children’s father and they all still live together.

Psychological report

A psychological report was handed into court, along with a letter of apology from the defendant herself.

Referring to the report, Mr McGowan pointed to the disgust his client felt at her behaviour. It noted she became involved with the other man about nine years ago, going for walks with him before becoming “intimate”. She was “shocked” when he confided to her an interest in certain types of photographs, and had attempted to withdraw from the relationship. But he “showered her with attention” and they remained connected.

In her dealings with professionals, the woman expressed condemnation of the production and distribution of child pornography, together with an empathy for her daughters.

After her arrest, the woman disclosed the details of the other relationship to her partner. He struggled at first to accept the circumstances but ultimately supported her.

The Tusla investigation into the matter was closed after about a year, Mr McGowan pointed out. His client had been deemed psychologically vulnerable to putting the needs of others before her own. She found it difficult to decline requests from others.

But she had a deep love for her family and was warm, good-humoured and engaging when interacting with people, counsel noted. He also read from her letter of apology, where she stated that her family was her life and the whole purpose of her existence. She could not forgive herself for the mistakes she made, but was now dedicated to protecting them and being the parent her children deserved.

In conclusion, Mr McGowan emphasised how his client never otherwise came to Garda attention, and how the investigating officer had very fairly agreed that she was effectively “used” by another individual.

Sentencing guided by ‘all the circumstances’

Having adjourned the matter for a few days to consider his ruling, Judge Aylmer opted to suspend in full a three-and-a-half-year sentence, in view of all the circumstances.

He told the defendant she came before the court on a plea of guilty to a charge related to the production of child pornography, which carried a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

The evidence established there were nine images involved, which were at the lower end of the spectrum because of the nature of the images; but the aggravating factor was that the offences constituted a gross breach of trust. The images were produced for the gratification of a man with whom the defendant was in a relationship.

Judge Aylmer said he noted from the important evidence of the investigating Garda that this was described as a transactional relationship. All the defendant was seeking was emotional support at a difficult time, and the other individual to whom she gave the images was using her for access to the children for his own sexual gratification.

Breach of trust

He had to consider the breach of trust before he considered mitigating circumstances, and this placed the crime into the medium range of offending, which merited a sentence of five years. The mitigation that he must consider was that the defendant was a person without previous convictions who has not come to any adverse attention before or since this offending.

It seemed the defendant was in the "thrall" to a man who was using her for his perverse interest in children. It appeared from a very detailed psychological report before the court that the defendant was a vulnerable person and was described as a person prone to putting the needs of others ahead of their own interests.

It was also apparent from the evidence and the report that the defendant was extremely remorseful and appropriately ashamed of her involvement in the offending. It was significant that Tusla investigated matters and, after a year, closed their file.

The defendant has been assessed as being of low risk of reoffending, and she also had the continued support of family members. He understood from the evidence that the victims remained unaware of the offending.

Judge Aylmer said he also noted the early guilty plea, for which the defendant should receive credit. In all the circumstances he would in the first instance reduce the sentence to one of three-and-a-half-years’ imprisonment.

The question then arose as to whether some, or all, of that sentence might be suspended. In that regard, the court had to consider the total absence of previous or subsequent offending and the fact that the defendant is deemed of low risk of reoffending.

In all the circumstances, and notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, he felt that the totality of the sentence should be suspended, which he would do for a period of three-and-a-half years on the defendant entering a bond of €100 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for that time.

The judge directed that during the suspension period the defendant go under the supervision of the Probation Service, which was to be provided by her with a copy of the psychologist’s report. The defendant was to comply with all the directions of the Probation Service, in line with her rehabilitation and in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the report.

Judge Aylmer also emphasised that he was imposing very significant reporting restrictions in this matter to protect the identity of the children. The name of the accused was not to be mentioned outside the courtroom, or any details that might identify who the woman’s children were. A mention of any details would be a contempt of court and punishable by a term of imprisonment.

* This report was published with support from the Court Reporting Scheme.