Judge refuses to reveal identity of former TD who gave reference on behalf of sex offender

LAST UPDATE | 18 hrs ago

THE COURT OF Appeal has refused to reveal the identity of a former TD who provided a character reference on behalf of a one-time government advisor convicted of sexually exploiting a 13-year-old boy at a Christian children’s camp.

At an appeal hearing last week, Mr Justice John Edwards noted that not a “single one” of those who provided a reference for Daniel Ramamoorthy (40) mentioned the victim or the “vile nature” of his crime.

Following a request today by a lawyer for the Irish Times newspaper for access to the testimonials, Mr Justice Edwards said he had already summarised their content.

Each one, including that made by the former TD, spoke to Ramamoorthy’s prior “pro-social” life, he said, and beyond that there was “nothing in them” that required to be disclosed.

Ramamoorthy’s lawyers had suggested the sentence was excessive and argued that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient weight to their client’s “exceptional background” and history of public service.

The court today dismissed Ramamoorthy’s appeal against his two year and four-month sentence, noting the appellant had not taken responsibility for the offending, there was no acceptance of fault or criminal liability and no acknowledgment of the impact of his conduct on the victim and “no earnest of remorse”.

Delivering judgment today, Mr Justice Edwards said although Ramamoorthy is a first-time offender, there was little to support a suggestion that his offending was “aberrational and truly out of character”.

On the contrary, he said, there are many “red flags” suggesting that the 40-year-old has “an abnormal sexual interest in children”.

Mr Justice Edwards noted the appellant has a good work record and said there was further evidence, in the form of a large number of testimonials, that in many respects Ramamoorthy had lived a “pro-social life”.

“It is clear that this appellant has done much good in his life, and has fund-raised and engaged in philanthropy in support of many charitable and community-based organisations and ventures,” said the judge.

“He has also given of his time to working in church or faith-based initiatives, although sight cannot be lost of the fact that he used one of these as the opportunity and vehicle for committing the offending at the centre of this case.”

However, Mr Justice Edwards said previous pro-social living could carry “only modest weight” in the absence of acceptance by the offender of his wrongdoing or acknowledgment of the suffering caused to the victim. He further noted an absence of a “desire and willingness on his part to work towards rehabilitation”.

‘Sentence above custody threshold required’

The court found the sentencing judge did not err in setting a headline sentence of three years in respect of the child sexual exploitation charge, nor the two-year headline applied in respect of the child pornography offence.

He said the single biggest mitigating factor, a plea of guilty, was not present in respect of the exploitation charge.

The judge said that at present, there is only limited guidance when sentencing for sexual exploitation of a child.

The court was in “no doubt”, he said, that a headline sentence “significantly above” the custody threshold was required in this case.

Mr Justice Edwards noted that while this was a single incident and there had been no “physically abusive contact” between the abuser and his victim, there were aggravating features to the offending, and the child had been “significantly adversely impacted”.

He said the principal aggravating factors were the age of the child, the significant age difference between the abuser and victim and the significant breaches of trust – including the trust of the child and his parents and of the Christian organisation running the event whose values and ethos Ramamoorthy had betrayed.

Other aggravating features, Mr Justice Edwards said, were the use of social media and technology for grooming the victim on a pretext of a game of “Truth or Dare” leading up to the request for intimate images of the boy.

Although the victim did not send any images, the court did note the “inappropriate transmission” to the teenager of an unsolicited intimate image of the offender’s genital area.

Advertisement

He said the sentencing judge was “quite right” to point out that the difficulties Ramamoorthy may have with foreign travel arising from his conviction and sentence arise “purely because of his own actions in engaging in criminal activity” and the judge was right to attach little weight to them.

The court also “unhesitatingly” rejected the suggestion that inadequate consideration was given by the sentencing judge to suspending all or part of the sentence for child exploitation in the interests of rehabilitation.

After the Court of Appeal delivered its judgement today, solicitor Matthew Austin from Hayes Solicitors made an application on behalf of the Irish Times asking that the newspaper be given access to the references handed in at Ramamoorthy’s sentencing hearing.

Court ‘doesn’t live in a teapot’

Refusing the application, Mr Justice Edwards said a large number of references had been provided and the court had accurately summarised the effect of these which was that they “speak to the previous pro social conduct” on the appellant’s part.

He said that beyond that, there was nothing in them that required to be disclosed.

Addressing the media coverage of the case since last week’s appeal hearing, Mr Justice Edwards said the court “doesn’t live in a teapot” and was aware that there had been “some level of interest” in a remark he had made to the effect that one of the references was submitted by a TD.

He said the reference was in fact submitted by a former TD whose comments were similar to the other testimonials in that it did not refer to the victim or the nature of the crime.

“The particular reference was no different to the others,” he said.

Ramamoorthy was convicted following two Circuit Criminal Court trials of one count of sexually exploiting the child in 2017 by asking him to send a picture of his penis over Snapchat. A jury in the first trial failed to reach a verdict.

The 40-year-old, with a previous address at Whitebarn Road, Rathfarnham, and Wolnzach, Germany, also pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing child sexual abuse material, referred to in law as child pornography.

Mr Justice Edward’s remarks, and the character reference provided by the unnamed TD, has sparked public and political debate over the past week.

On Sunday, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said he does not believe public representatives should be giving character references, particularly in cases “that involve sexual exploitation or sexual abuse or anything of that nature.”

Martin said he had “no idea who the TD is”.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard Ramamoorthy was found with three images and one video depicting young boys engaged in sexual activity with each other and with an unknown adult man. He continues to maintain his innocence in relation to the sexual exploitation offence.

Ramamoorthy, described in court as a motivational speaker, social media influencer and entrepreneur, had at one point acted as an adviser to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on start-ups, his sentencing hearing was told.

He is the son of a diplomat and was educated at Yale University in the USA.

The victim first met Ramamoorthy at a Christian camp, where he was described as “very friendly, charismatic and popular”.

In 2017, the pair got into a late night conversation on Snapchat involving a game of truth or dare.

The game started innocently enough before Ramamoorthy asked the boy: “How big is your dick?” and requested that the child send him a photo of his penis.

Ramamoorthy then sent the teenager a photo of his pubic hair area and told him he was addicted to pornography. The boy was shocked and did not respond to Ramamoorthy, who then told him: “I win truth or dare.”

At last week’s hearing, Mr Justice Edwards, sitting with Ms Justice Tara Burns and Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy, noted that numerous character references had been submitted on Ramamoorthy’s behalf, including one from a TD. It was “quite extraordinary”, he said, that not a “single one” mentioned the victim or the “vile nature” of the offending.

Mr Justice McCarthy said the court knew from “bitter experience” that people held in the “highest regard” by society were capable of serious offending.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More Support The Journal