A Romanian teenager accused of attempted rape was refused bail after a judge heard the defendant's father allegedly told a prospective landlord he "will be removing his son from the jurisdiction".
District Judge Nigel Broderick also heard that while the family of the 14-year-old defendant have signed a rental agreement and paid a month’s rent in advance, his father told the landlord that if his son is granted bail, the family "have no intention of remaining in the jurisdiction".
"He followed that up with saying that he was not going to let his son go to jail in this country," a detective told Ballymena Youth Court.
Two 14-year-old boys are currently on remand, charged with attempted oral rape of a schoolgirl, who is also 14, on 7 June this year.
Previous courts have heard how the two defendants were arrested within hours of the alleged attack while a third suspect, also a teenager, has fled the country and is currently residing in Romania.
One of the boys lodged an application for bail today and objecting to him being released, the officer outlined that according to the police case, the schoolgirl was walking to meet friends when she was dragged down an alleyway into a garage on Clonavon Terrace.
Inside the garage, the girl saw two mattresses on the floor and after she was put on one of them, the two defendants are alleged to have tried to force her to perform sex acts on them while the third suspect, the one who has fled, allegedly raped her.
The alleged assailants stopped when they heard a male voice outside the garage, giving the girl the opportunity to escape.
Police attended the property on Clonavon Terrace after due to the two defendants matching the complainant’s descriptions, the pair were arrested.
During police interviews, "this defendant provided a prepared interview where he denied any criminality" and then refused to answer officers’ questions.
'Strong objections' to bail
The officer told the court police had "strong objections" to bail given the fact that the third suspect has already fled, taken together with the alleged comments of the defendant’s father.
She added that when a different address had been put forward in an earlier proposed bail application, the police had spoken to the occupants of that other property.
"They told police that the defendant’s father had indicated the intention that if released from custody, he would be removed from the jurisdiction," said the detective, adding that "police have serious concerns about the parents’ ability to assist with the adherence of bail".
Turning to the investigation itself, the officer told Judge Broderick "the forensic examinations have been completed" and the investigation team intend to have the file submitted to the PPS in two weeks time.
Defence counsel Conn O’Neill said that despite comments allegedly attributed to the defendant’s father, "they barely speak English".
"So you think that the landlord is telling lies," Judge Broderick asked and the barrister told him, "no, I don’t, but it may have been lost in translation".
"What I think has happened here is that they may not have had the best first impression of being in our jurisdiction," the lawyer suggested.
'Risk of flight'
Mr O’Neill said that despite the family not having any great wealth, they had gathered £1,000 together to lodge as a surety to try to assuage the concerns, submitting that the teenager’s passport and any travel documents are already in the possession of the police.
Judge Broderick said while both he and the lay magistrates accept there is a presumption of innocence and in favour of bail, "however, we are concerned about what the officer has said regarding the risk of flight".
"We have considered whether or not the risk could be managed by additional conditions of bail but we feel that in the circumstances, we are not satisfied that conditions would address the risk of flight," the judge ruled.
Refusing bail, he adjourned both cases to 15 October, stressing that "it is vital that this matter is expedited."
