Woman accuses farmer of sexual assault

Woman accuses farmer of sexual assault at vet clinic


A farmer has denied sexually assaulting an employee of a veterinary clinic when she was 17 years of age.
The defendant appeared before Castlebar District Court on Wednesday last. Neither he nor the female complainant can be named due to reporting restrictions. The veterinary clinic cannot be named either.
The defendant, who has since turned 18, told the court that she took up work at the clinic at 5pm on October 19 last. She worked there as a receptionist two evenings a week and on a Saturday.
She said the defendant, a farmer in his 50s who came in regularly, came into the clinic looking for syringes. He then asked her did she want to come for a spin, she said.
She added that after another customer came and went, the defendant came around behind the counter where she was sitting on her own and placed his two hands down on her leg, one on her upper leg and one on her lower leg and bent down to her level.
She said she got a fright and told him to f*** off and turned her back to walk away when he ‘slapped me lightly on my bum’. She told him to go, to which he replied ‘less of your cheek’ and was laughing. She went into another room, and the farmer was gone when she looked out again.
She said she felt petrified since. She denied claims from the defendant that she was looking for money for a car from him, and denies he touched her leg while trying to retrieve his phone which she had taken while asking for €1,000. She said she never saw his phone in her life.
She said the defendant ‘always came across as sleazy to me’ and that ‘he repulsed me’.
She told the court that her employer had dismissed her the previous Saturday because of this case. She said her boss had said he could no longer employ her as it would affect business.
“I felt terrible because I did nothing wrong,” she told the court.
Her employer told the court he did not like court and ‘would prefer’ if this case was not in court, adding things would be different if it was his daughter. He said he asked the complainant last Saturday not to go ahead with the case and said it might be difficult to give her work after the case, depending on how it went. He said it was a ‘sensitive situation’ for a business working with farmers and that he was the biggest loser, next to the complainant. He said the court case ‘is not a helpful situation’ for any small business trying to survive.
Defending solicitor Lynda Lenehan asked him had he a doubt about the complainant’s version of events. He said he wasn’t there at the time.
He also said that he had spoken to the defendant three days after the incident and asked him what was he at, adding ‘She is only 17’. He said the defendant said ‘She’s older than you think’. He said he had no CCTV footage as the wires for his CCTV system were cut last September.
The defendant said he had received calls from a girl on a private number just before this incident asking about cattle he had for sale and inquiring specifically about Belgian Blue cattle, asking if ‘they have a good arse on them’.
He said when he was in the clinic on October 19 the complainant said to him that a work colleague of hers ‘has a fine arse on her like a Belgian Blue’. He said she went on to say she knew how much cattle he had and that ‘you’ve plenty of money’ and said she wanted €1,000 to buy a car. He claimed she grabbed his phone and said she would only give it back if he gave her €1,000, which is what led to him going around the counter. He was trying to grab the phone back, he said.
The defendant said he spoke to the owner of the clinic on November 1, the second time he had spoken to him about the incident. He claimed the owner had said that the complainant and her sister, who had also worked in the clinic, were ‘very dangerous’ women and that the sister had tried something similar with another farmer and ‘all they are looking for is money’.
Defending solicitor Lynda Lenehan said she took issue with the fact that the Gardaí, when requested, did nothing to try to provide phone records of the complainant in the days before the incident, given the defendant’s claims about calls from private numbers.
Judge Mary Devins said she wanted to review her notes before making a decision and adjourned the case to this Friday, July 26.