A 59-year-old Lisnaskea man who was convicted of indecently assaulting a child on the 16th of July last year has been given a six month suspended prison sentence, fined £1,000 and ordered to sign the sex offenders register for a period of seven years.

The case for sentencing Francis Joseph Butler came before a recent sitting of Fermanagh Magistrates Court where defending, Des Fahy, outlined that this had been a case that followed a contest for one count of indecent assault. At that stage, the defendant, he said, did not give evidence because of his loss of memory concerning the day in question due to the amount of alcohol he had taken.

The assault, Mr Fahy said, was not a prolonged assault, it was limited to touching on clothing. It had also happened on a route which was on Butler's way home. It was a mitigating factor, he submitted, that the assault was slight or not prolonged, and a relevant factor in sentencing.

Resident Magistrate Liam McNally said facts showed Butler had his hand under the girl's skirt. He also said in view of the evidence given by the girl's father, there had been no significant effect on the child.

Mr Fahy said Butler had a clear record, and he was a man who was in a position, to his credit, who had reached this age (59) and had not come before the court.

He said Bulter had a significant alcohol problem, this had been a significant factor in his life but one that he was now addressing. Butler, he said had abstained from alcohol for a period of six months at least since the incident.

Mr McNally questioned what guarantee did he have that when the memory faded, and if Butler goes back to drinking, that this will not happen again.

Mr Fahy said there were no guarantees, instead it was a test of his metals on how he had behaved since. He said it was an ongoing battle that Butler would have to take day-by-day.

He further submitted Butler was a man who had a good work ethic. He then outlined the large number of character references that had been submitted on Butler's behalf. This was a man he said, for which a large number of people in the community were willing to stand up for his character. The volume and quality of character references showed he said, how he was someone people were prepared to stand by. Such people he said, extended to parents, a number of whom said that he had contact with children over a long period of time. These, he reiterated, were not empty words, they were backed up and were by people who were willing to stand by Butler.

Mr Fahy said there was a family farm and the defendant was the sole male to look after that.

He said Butler accepted the decision of the court and the authority of the court.

He submitted that an immediate custodial sentence was not the appropriate method in dealing with Butler and added that a suspended sentence was not necessarily an easier sentence. He said Butler was unlikely to come before the court again.

Mr McNally said that Butler had been charged with indecent assault and had been found guilty. This, he said was a very serious offence. In many ways he said, it was an abhorrent offence that the public at large treat very seriously. He said when it came to sexual offences against children, there was a duty on courts to deal with the matter seriously. The only proper sentence he had was to impose custody, something he said, Mr Fahy had urged him to suspend.

The RM said he would take into account the fact that Butler was 60 on his next birthday and had a clear record. He said he had read the report provided in detail.

He said there was evidence that he had been a hard-working man throughout. He said there was also evidence he had suffered from an alcohol problem and at the time of the incident he had been returning home from a two day binge, something he thought there was a truth in. He believed that what had happened was out of character for Butler. The RM continued by saying that he had looked at the references handed in on his behalf. The entire community, he said, had rallied behind him. There were some 20 to 30 references and he said he took into account what people had said by people such as teachers and neighbours. They, he said had painted a picture of a law abiding man who because of his drunken nature had done what he had done.

The RM also considered the fact that Butler had abstained from drink for six months.

He took Article 19 of the criminal justices order 1996 into account and said he felt a suspended sentence was adequate in dealing with this case.

He said the fact that his wife and family had supported him throughout showed the measure of the man he was.

He imposed a six month suspended sentence for a period of two years along with a £1,000 fine.