đŸ Archived View for eir.mooo.com âș nuacht âș lui170699402517.gmi captured on 2024-02-05 at 09:44:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Donal O'Regan, 3 Feb
A MAN was accused of damaging his then partnerâs phone by squeezing it
in pliers and leaving it in a dog bowl.
The defendant, who denies one count of criminal damage, said he was
âonly pretending to squeeze itâ and did it because she was âcheating
behind my backâ.
The Limerick Leader has not named the parties to protect the identity
of the children.
The complainant, who took the stand in Newcastle West Court, said she
was getting children ready for school on the date in question.
âI was upstairs putting on my sonâs shoes. My daughter was downstairs -
he told her âyour mum doesnât give a s*** about youâ. He entered the
bedroom, pinned me to the bed and put me in a headlock to get my phone.
I said, âPlease, can I get my phone backâ. It was the only thing
keeping me sane,â said the woman. She told the court she went
downstairs and asked the accused for the phone back.
âHe wouldnât give it back. He squeezed the phone in pliers. He made
faces at me. I found the phone in the dog bowl,â she said.
Inspector Barry Manton, prosecuting, asked what condition the phone was
in. She said it was broken, crushed, cracked, the colours weren't
normal and she could barely enter her password.
Michael OâDonnell, solicitor for the defendant, asked the woman if she
had the phone. She said she lost it.
Mr OâDonnell said his client denies he broke it and asked her if she is
in the habit of breaking phones? He then showed three broken phones
belonging to the complainant.
Mr OâDonnell said he had a witness who will say the phone at the centre
of proceedings was broken two days prior to the incident.
âIt might have been damaged. Iâm not sure. When I got the phone in the
dog bowl it was worse,â she said.
Insp Manton asked the woman about the functionality of the phone prior
to it being put in the pliers? âGrand,â she said. The garda inspector
asked how the functionality was after it was put in the pliers? âNo
colour and I could barely put in my password,â she said.
The accused man entered the witness box. He said he pretended to
squeeze the phone in pliers because âshe was cheating behind my backâ.
âThe phone was already broken. It was totally cracked,â said the
defendant.
Insp Manton put it to him that he put the phone in the teeth of pliers.
âYes, but I didnât close it,â he said.
Insp Manton said liquid crystal display (LCD) is very fragile. âYes,â
said the accused.
[pexels-anastasia-ilinamakarova-11049137-1706522247078_1706522296.jpg--
man_banned_from_driving_for_10_years_after_horses_broke_out_of_field_in
_limerick.jpg?1706522296683]
Man banned from driving for 10 years after horses broke out of field in
Limerick
Insp Manton asked was he absolutely confident he hadnât squeezed the
pliers? âYes,â he said. The defendant agreed with the inspector that he
was angry at the time.
Mr OâDonnell called the father of the accused as a witness. He said he
saw the phone in question two days earlier at a birthday party. He said
the complainant was on the phone and the screen was cracked.
Insp Manton queried how he saw the phone was cracked when it was up to
the personâs ear and said it showed the phone was working.
Mr OâDonnell asked Judge Carol Anne Coolican to dismiss the criminal
damage offence.
âThere must be a doubt. The phone has been lost. Evidence was given
that the phone was cracked two days before,â said Mr OâDonnell.
In response, Insp Manton said the complainant said the functionality of
the phone was fine before it was put in the teeth of pliers which was
ârecklessâ.
âThere is no denial that the event occurred,â said Insp Manton.
Judge Coolican said there seems to be a conflict of evidence regarding
the functionality of the phone prior to the accused putting the phone
in a pair of pliers and whether he squeezed it or not.
âThe phone is lost. I have to give the defendant the benefit of the
doubt. Dismiss,â said Judge Coolican.