Conviction for breaching safety order overturned after judge finds evidence not up to standard
A man who was convicted of breaching a safety order after it was alleged he threatened his ex-partner has had his conviction overturned on appeal, after a judge found that the evidence did not reach the criminal standard.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the District Court Appeals Court today that there had been an interaction between him and the woman while he was collecting his child for access, but denied using threatening words.
He was convicted in the District Court of breaching a safety order on May 24, 2023, contrary to section 33(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 2018. The man, who was fined €500 euro, later lodged an appeal against his conviction.
The woman also gave evidence, telling the court that on the day in question, she got her child ready for access with their father.
She said that the child left the house but shortly afterwards they were back at the door, “very upset” and visibly crying. She said that she put her child on her lap.
The complainant said that the man began shouting at her, saying: “I’ll get you for this you c**t” and “I’ll have you for this you c**t”.
The woman said that there was a safety order in place between them and that the words frightened her and made her very nervous.
Another prosecution witness told the court that he was sitting on the inside stairs of the house at the time and had heard the man use the threatening language.
A garda told the court that the woman was upset and tearful when she presented to a station to report the alleged breach.
The older child of the man and woman also gave evidence, telling the court via video-link that they were in their father’s car during the interaction.
They said that the younger child “seemed really confused and upset” but that their father didn’t get angry.
They said they understood what bad language was and that they did not hear their father use it towards their mother or act threateningly, telling the court: “Definitely not, no.”
A neighbour told the court that she saw the interaction through her upstairs window and heard the woman. She said that she didn’t hear the man say anything, only that he nodded his head and got back into the car.
The accused man told the court that the woman engaged him in discussion outside the house and that he told her that she cannot be confusing their younger child.
The man said he “completely denied” using threatening language toward the woman or that he acted in a way that would put her in fear.
Defence counsel, David Staunton BL, said that there was a “chasm” in the dispute over what happened and noted that the days leading up to the alleged incident were “fraught”.
Mr Staunton said that his client was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and that the case could not be proved to a criminal standard.
Counsel for the prosecution said that the evidence from the appellant was that he was upset for his child, but upset nonetheless. He said that there had been a period of difficulty leading up to the events.
He said that there was an exchange between the two parties which was sufficient to put the complainant in fear and that the man used language in breach of the order.
Judge Gerard Meehan said that it was difficult for the court to find beyond doubt that the words were used.
He said that there were two versions of events and that he was not satisfied that the evidence reaches the criminal standard.
Judge Meehan decided to allow the appeal against conviction.
Funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme
