A MAN accused of the abuse and neglect of his five children has claimed that he was away at work during the day and did not see much of the children who he believed were being cared for by his wife.
The 42-year-old man disagreed with Isobel Kennedy SC, prosecuting, during cross-examination, that he “closed his eyes to the condition of the children” and claimed his wife had told the children to make allegations against him.
Ms Kennedy asked him how he could account for evidence that his daughter did not know what a toothbrush was and that there was “long-term dirt” on the children. He said: “I don’t know.”
The jury of five men and seven women have heard closing speeches from both counsel and will be charged today by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne.
The accused man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to the rape and sexual assault of his now 10-year- old daughter in September 2007 and the sexual assault of his now 13-year-old son between January and February 2007.
He pleaded not guilty to the wilful assault of his three sons in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering, injury or seriously affect their wellbeing between January and September 2007.
He denied the wilful neglect of all five children, now aged between seven and 14, by failing to provide adequate clothing or food.
The accused said he was out of the house working from 8am until late most evenings and he provided funds to run the house. He said the children would either be in bed, in their pyjamas or just finishing their dinner when he came home.
Ms Kennedy asked what he had to say about the evidence of a witness who said the children looked uncared for and their clothes were too small. “I was at work so what they had on I don’t know,” he said.
He agreed that he would see the children on a Sunday and said they were well clothed and their hair was in place. He hugged and kissed his children but did not notice they were “malodorous”.
Asked about evidence given that his four- and eight-year-old daughters were not toilet-trained, he said: “As far as I know they were always toilet-trained.”
He agreed he hit the children but said it was “only when they were bold”.
He said his youngest son’s account that he was hit whether he was bold or not was “wrong”.
Asked why his now 13-year-old son had said he did not love him he replied: “Probably because I smacked him and his mother turned him against me.”
He agreed that he was telling the jury that his wife was putting the children up to making the allegations.
He agreed that he had said this was a woman who loved him and it was a “perfect family”.