Having found that a separated husband breached a protection order against his former wife, a judge has nevertheless struck out the case so the man can continue working and financially supporting their children.
The man’s former wife alleged that the accused threatened to ‘f**k’ her out the window but the court decided against conviction after hearing that he would not be able to travel to the US for work if he has a criminal record.
The man, who is in his 40s, had pleaded not guilty at Tallaght District Court to contravening a protection order his former wife had obtained against him, an offence contrary to Section 33(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.
The court heard the order was made at Dolphin House on March 29, 2023, after the couple had separated but while they were still living in the same house.
The charge alleged that on June 23 that year at their home in south Dublin, the defendant put the applicant in fear by being threatening and abusive towards her.
The woman told the court that the defendant had been repeatedly pressuring her to drop the protection order.
She said he told her she did not “f***ing need” the order and that he was “going to clip my wings” and that he also threatened to “f*** me out the window”.
“It was continuous”, she told the court. “It wasn’t just once”.
The woman said she did not call gardaí immediately because she was afraid of escalating the situation while their children were in the house and they had nowhere to go.
“I was scared and I had children in the house, upstairs in bed,” she said.
She told the court she had been trying to separate from the defendant and said he had called her “every name under the sun” to get her to drop the protection order.
Defence counsel put it to her that the protection order was tactical ahead of upcoming family law proceedings.
The woman rejected this and said: “You don’t get to tell me this is tactical. I am not playing games”.
Counsel also questioned why the woman had waited a number of days to report the alleged breach if she was genuinely in fear.
The woman said she had been afraid of the consequences and wanted to de-escalate the situation while she and the children were still in the house. “It was that or escalate it,” she said. “It’s not as easy as people might think”.
The woman became visibly distressed during cross-examination and told the court: “I was afraid of him. I am still in fear of him”.
The defendant gave evidence and denied pressuring his former wife to drop the protection order or making the alleged threats: “I reject all of them, absolutely, 100 per cent,” he told the court.
He told Judge Derek Cooney that, although he had been surprised by the protection order, he was not angry about it.
Defence counsel submitted that a conviction would have serious consequences for the defendant’s livelihood, as he worked in a role closely connected with US companies.
Counsel said the defendant “wouldn’t be able to set foot in the United States” if he was convicted, and that this could affect his ability to continue working in his current role.
Judge Cooney said he had heard two conflicting accounts and had to assess the evidence, the demeanour of the witnesses and their credibility.
The judge said it was “virtually impossible” for a person to remember every detail of an incident from three years ago.
Giving his decision, the judge said: “Based on the evidence, I find her account to be credible and I believe “something had certainly happened” that evening.
He said he took issue with the way the woman had been cross-examined and found that the defendant had breached the protection order.
However, Judge Cooney also noted that the defendant had no previous convictions, there had been no further garda involvement since the incident and that both parties had moved on.
The woman told the court there had not yet been a financial settlement, but confirmed that the defendant supported the children and “always shows up for the kids”.
Judge Cooney said that although he believed the order had been breached, there would be “no winners – only losers” if a conviction was recorded.
He said that a conviction would have a negative effect on the children if it affected their father’s ability to work and support them financially.
The judge warned that nothing like this should ever happen again.
He struck out the case, leaving the man without a recorded conviction.