Bar owner preyed onteenage boy at work

Judge ran the Yachtsman bar in Woodhouse Street between 1980 and 1983, when the offences took place.

Prosecution barrister Charles McCreanor QC said Judge, by all accounts and by his own admission, was a “hard, tough man running a busy bar”, who directed people and took control.

He said the abuse began when Judge asked the boy to go up and clean the upstairs bar, which was rarely used, and then followed him up.

The defendant, he said, would have leant over his victim when he was sweeping the carpet, on the pretext of showing him how to do it, and would have brushed against him.

Judge then started to play ‘blue’ movies in the upstairs bar and asked the complainant what he thought of them. Said Mr McCreanor, “He was 14, he had never seen a ‘blue’ movie before.”

The abuse progressed to Judge taking down his trousers and underpants behind the bar and standing behind his victim. He then took down the victim’s trousers, and started to perform a sex act on him.

Judge also took the victim’s hand and put it on an intimate part of his (Judge’s) body, again performing a sex act.

Mr McCreanor put it to Judge, “You told him, ‘You are doing no harm, this is a normal thing’.”

The defendant also attempted to bugger the complainant, and got him to perform other sex acts both in the bar and in a car park at Maghery, to which he drove him in his car.

Mr McCreanor said the complainant started to get into trouble at school and one night, after an incident at the bar, broke down to his parents and told them Judge had been abusing him.

At this point, the victim’s mother went to Judge’s brother Malachy’s house and Judge went to the boy’s parents to apologise. He admitted to the incident in court but described it as “horseplay, gripping the complainant by the balls” and that he had explained this to the complainant’s mother and she had accepted his account and his apology.

The victim said the next time he saw Judge was when he was 17 and he and a friend needed money for a football match. They went to Busby’s chip shop and Judge gave them £40 each.

The victim’s brother, who gave evidence for the prosecution, said that every time his brother had a drink “the name of Gerard Judge comes up” and accounts of abuse.

The brother had gone to Busby’s shop in July 2013 to confront Judge, where, the witness said, the defendant admitted the abuse.

Mr McCreanor QC said, “Judge said he was willing to hand himself in to police because this wouldn’t go away, and that he couldn’t live with himself. He had tears in his eyes.”

Addressing the defendant, he added, “His (the complainant’s) brother thought you were sincere in your apology, you were so distressed by what you had done.”

In cross-examination, Judge denied that the conversation between him and the complainant’s brother ever took place.

The defendant’s brother, Brian Judge, who took the stand for the defence, admitted under cross-examination that the complainant’s brother had also spoken to him of the sex abuse allegations.

But he told the court they were allegations of rape and did not correspond with the final charges.

In November 2013, the victim went to the police station to report the sexual abuse.

Addressing the jury in his summing-up, and referring to the evidence of the complainant, Mr McCreanor said it was difficult for him to remember exactly the details of 35 years ago.

He said, “These are traumatic incidents, multiple incidents. How do children see things? How do they put down memories? You have to look at the sort of person he became.

“He has a drink problem, being picked up out of the gutter by his brother time and time again. He has been suicidal. He says his life is blighted. Is it a coincidence that he says he has also been abused?

“The defendant says he did not know the complainant had a drink problem. Is he staying away from the person the complainant became?”

Defence solicitor Gavan Duffy QC argued that the defendant was a family man, with no previous offences. He said the complainant’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and that when he had a chance to disclose any sexual abuse during a previous appointment with a psychiatrist he had failed to do so.

However, the jury was unconvinced by the defence arguments and Judge’s evidence, eventually reaching a guilty verdict on Monday lunchtime.

Its deliberations had started shortly after 2pm on Friday, resuming again on Monday after the weekend break.