Donal O'Regan, 3 Feb
A MAN was accused of damaging his then partner’s 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
“only pretending to squeeze it” and did it because she was “cheating
behind my back”.
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.
“I was upstairs putting on my son’s shoes. My daughter was downstairs -
he told her ‘your mum doesn’t give a s*** about you’. He entered the
bedroom, pinned me to the bed and put me in a headlock to get my phone.
I said, ‘Please, can I get my phone back’. It was the only thing
keeping me sane,” said the woman. She told the court she went
downstairs and asked the accused for the phone back.
“He wouldn’t give it back. He squeezed the phone in pliers. He made
faces at me. I found the phone in the dog bowl,” 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 O’Donnell, solicitor for the defendant, asked the woman if she
had the phone. She said she lost it.
Mr O’Donnell 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 O’Donnell said he had a witness who will say the phone at the centre
of proceedings was broken two days prior to the incident.
“It might have been damaged. I’m not sure. When I got the phone in the
dog bowl it was worse,” she said.
Insp Manton asked the woman about the functionality of the phone prior
to it being put in the pliers? “Grand,” she said. The garda inspector
asked how the functionality was after it was put in the pliers? “No
colour and I could barely put in my password,” she said.
The accused man entered the witness box. He said he pretended to
squeeze the phone in pliers because “she was cheating behind my back”.
“The phone was already broken. It was totally cracked,” said the
defendant.
Insp Manton put it to him that he put the phone in the teeth of pliers.
“Yes, but I didn’t close it,” he said.
Insp Manton said liquid crystal display (LCD) is very fragile. “Yes,”
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 hadn’t squeezed the
pliers? “Yes,” he said. The defendant agreed with the inspector that he
was angry at the time.
Mr O’Donnell 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 person’s ear and said it showed the phone was working.
Mr O’Donnell asked Judge Carol Anne Coolican to dismiss the criminal
damage offence.
“There must be a doubt. The phone has been lost. Evidence was given
that the phone was cracked two days before,” said Mr O’Donnell.
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
“reckless”.
“There is no denial that the event occurred,” 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.
“The phone is lost. I have to give the defendant the benefit of the
doubt. Dismiss,” said Judge Coolican.