Woman’s claims of rape, sex assault against husband ‘not the truth’, judge finds

A High Court judge has ruled that allegations of rape and sexual assault made by a woman against her husband were “not the truth”.

In a recently published judgment, Mr Justice John Jordan said the allegations appeared to the court to be an “ill-considered attempt” by the woman to construct a narrative that might assist her in negotiating or achieving the best terms of the dissolution of the partnership.

She was “wrong” to make the untrue claims against the man and “could not but have been aware of the gravity of the allegations she made and repeated”, he said.

Mr Justice Jordan ruled on the case last year but his judgment was published this week.

The husband had raised these issues, along with the wife’s allegations about his ill-treatment of their children, in family law proceedings seeking a decree for judicial separation and ancillary relief concerning their children, finances and properties.

His disclosure of the allegations in court came despite an undertaking from the wife not to rely on them in these or other proceedings and not to discuss them in any setting save for in a personal, private or confidential therapeutic environment.

This was not acceptable to the man, who had submitted that the “heinous” claims “cannot be allowed to stand”, said the judge. They “go to the heart of my integrity as a man and as a father and as a [professional person] and whatever else you want to call me”, the man said.

‘Utmost gravity’

Mr Justice Jordan said the man had “no sensible alternative” but to have the issues dealt with and that he was “entitled to protect and defend his reputation and character when accused of acts of the utmost gravity”.

The judge further ruled that the woman’s allegations regarding her husband’s treatment of their children, and in particular one child who has behavioural issues, “do not stand up to scrutiny”. The wife had made various reports to Tusla and gardaí about the man, including unsuccessfully seeking a barring order against him.

The court found the father did not abuse any of the children and it has “no child welfare concerns” about his care for them.

The court was also satisfied that the wife had “frustrated” – sometimes deliberately and at other times probably subconsciously – contact between the children and their father at various stages since she left the family home with them.

As for the breakdown of the marriage, the court saw no reason to attribute blame to either party. The wife’s allegations appeared to be an “aberration” during the tumult of a failing marriage, the judge said, noting she is a professional who has achieved much through ability, hard work and determination.

‘Gross misconduct’

Although pursuing the sexual allegations to such an extent amounted to “gross misconduct” in the court’s view, it did not consider separation provision should be influenced by this. That is partly because the husband was clear the allegations had to be dealt with so the family could move on and he was not seeking financial compensation for the wrong, said the judge.

Mr Justice Jordan made various provisions regarding shared equal custody and financial arrangements. He noted the former couple are each “loving parents” and there is no reason to doubt either’s willingness or ability to care for their children.

The judge awarded the man 60 per cent of his legal costs, having been satisfied that the case was elongated and “particularly bitter” due to the woman’s untrue allegations.