Pervert film-maker who abused girl for six years worked with youngsters after sex crime charges
Published 07/07/2016 | 08:57
A paedophile film-maker worked with young people while awaiting trial for a string of child sex attacks.
Aiden Patrick Molloy was last week jailed for two years after he was found guilty of a six-year campaign of sex abuse against a young schoolgirl.
The girl was molested by Molloy several times between 1998 and 2004, when she was aged between 13 and 19.
Concerns have been raised that the 55-year-old worked with children after being charged with sex offences.
Molloy, from Loughbracken Road, Pomeroy, Co Tyrone described himself on business websites as a film-maker.
He owns his own production and filming company called Molloy Films. Before his conviction, a large portion of his work involved filming weddings, Christenings, school, sporting and community events.
Following a complaint to police, Molloy was charged more than 18 months ago with indecently assaulting the schoolgirl on a number of occasions.
He pleaded not guilty and was released on bail. But despite the nature of the charges against him, he continued to work with youngsters.
It is understood that those who commissioned him were unaware of the allegations.
Earlier this year, just a few months before he was due to stand trial, he filmed a number of schoolgirls for a charity event.
And in December, he filmed a Christmas Santa run featuring several children.
A source close to the case said: "It is indefensible that this man was working with children and young girls while awaiting trial on extremely serious sex abuse charges.
"To make it worse, no parents were notified that the man working with their children was accused of child sex offences.
"This man is extremely manipulative. He is not a nice man, but for many years was able to fool so many people."
In May, Molloy was found guilty by a jury of three charges of indecent assault on the girl that he molested.
Last week, a judge jailed him for two years and placed him on the sex offenders' register.
The judge said, however, that he would not make an order banning the defendant from working with children upon his release from prison.
He explained the court was satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it was unlikely Molloy would commit any further offences against a child.
The judge added that it was therefore unnecessary to disqualify the defendant from working with children under the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Order.
He did, however, impose a Sexual Offences Prevention Order prohibiting Molloy from having contact with children under the age of 16, apart from unavoidable contact taking place in the course of everyday life, for a period of five years.