Portlaoise Court: Husband (83) put wife in fear over broken television
The case was heard at Portlaoise Family Law Court. File image
AN 83-YEAR-OLD man was sentenced to a month in prison, suspended for two years, when he was convicted of breaching a court-imposed safety order.
The sentence was handed down at the Family Law Court in Portlaoise where he pleaded not guilty but was convicted of the offence, which happened at the family home on 26 December last year.
The court heard that gardaí responded to a call about a domestic incident that evening. When they arrived at the house, the man’s wife told them that her husband came home drunk and started yelling abuse at her over a broken television set. There was a safety order in place at the time.
The arresting garda said that, while there was a smell of alcohol from the man, he wasn’t “overly drunk” and was coherent.
In her sworn evidence, the woman told the court: “He had been drinking all afternoon. He came home and was shouting at me.”
When defending barrister Andrew Dunne put it to the woman that her husband cared for her, she replied: “He says he cares for me, but he doesn’t. Five people come in to care for me that includes my son and daughter. He doesn’t care for me. He gives me my medication in the mornings. He brings dinners in to me, only when two others make it.”
Mr Dunne said that his client went out that afternoon, played a round of golf and had three to four pints before going back to the house.
“I’d say he drank more than that,” said the woman.
Mr Dunne said: “He went into the kitchen to watch television and you were in the sitting room, but the leads were pulled out from the back of the television.”
“He was shouting at me that the television wasn’t working,” said the woman.
Mr Dunne said: “He will say that he wasn’t shouting at you and that he didn’t put you in fear."
She replied: “He always says that, but he was.”
The couple’s son then took the stand and said he was at home with his family when he received a phone call from his mother, who was crying and saying something about the television.
He said he went to the family home and heard roaring and shouting when he entered. He said: “I told him to shut up and to sit down. My mother was very upset and frightened. I rang my sister and she rang the guards. He said to me, all I have is my f*cking television and you were at it.”
The son said: “For 30 odd years the relationship with him has not been good. He’s been an abusive monster.”
In his evidence, the defendant said: “I played a round of golf and then had four drinks. I came home at about 4.30pm and went into the kitchen. I turned on the television and it wasn’t working. The wires had been pulled out of the back of it.
“I went into the sitting room to where she was and said, he’s (son) after pulling all the wires out of the television. He came in and started effin’ and blinding at me. There’s no truth in that I abused my wife. I care for her seven days a week. Every time he (son) passes by the window, he gives me two fingers and walks away smiling.”
The man said his son had pulled the wires out from the back of the television, “knowing that he’d get me in trouble and to provoke an argument” but he didn’t roar at his wife.
He said: “I don’t know why the guards were called. There was no need for them. He just wanted to get me in trouble.”
Mr Dunne said there had been a breakdown in the family relationship for a long time. His client accepted that he got upset at the time but he knew there was a safety order in place and he wasn’t going to break it.
The barrister added: “It is a very tense situation, the breakdown in the family and it doesn’t appear to be getting any better.”
Judge Andrew Cody noted that a safety order is designed to protect an applicant and dependent children from violence, threats or harassment without requiring the respondent to leave the family home.
He said the order prohibits the respondent from using or threatening to use violence against, molesting or putting in fear the applicant or a dependent person. It also prohibits watching, besetting or loitering in the vicinity of the place where the applicant or dependent person resides, as well as following or communicating with the applicant or dependent person, including electronic means such as phone calls, emails or social media.
The judge said he was satisfied with the evidence of the woman and her son that the defendant had put her in fear and that an altercation had taken place on the day.
Judge Cody added that the man admitted having four drinks before going home and “four pints is a significant amount of alcohol for a man of his age”.
The judge said: “I accept that he was roaring and shouting and he put her in fear.”
Mr Dunne said that his client is “a gentleman who just wants to live in peace in his home”.
Judge Cody asked the woman if she had anything to say before he passed sentence. She replied: “It had a very bad effect on me. I don’t like him coming home with any drink on him. He says he won’t do it again, but he always does. My son and daughter can’t come into my home anymore, because he won’t allow them in.”
Judge Cody told the defendant that the woman did not need to be treated like this in her own home, before imposing a one-month sentence which he suspended for two years.
*Family law cases are held in private due to their sensitive nature. Reporting restrictions are put in place whereby no identifying details can be published.
Funded by the Court Reporting Scheme
