Judge dismisses case due to credibility of complainant
Carlow Court House. Photo: Michael O'Rourke
A CASE in which a man retrieved a bar or stick from the boot of his car and advanced on another driver was dismissed at Carlow District Court after Judge Geraldine Carthy found there was “no case to answer” due to a credibility issue with the complainant.
Dylan Ovington (21) gave evidence that on 11 December 2023, he was in Baltinglass getting a phone charger before visiting his cousin’s grave when the incident occurred. “As I pulled out, this car flew in front of me while I was sitting there. I didn’t know what was going on,” he told the court.
He said he recognised the driver, Johnny Molloy (49), who lives near him. He claimed Mr Molloy blocked the road on Church Lane, retrieved a bar from the boot of his car and “walked aggressively” towards Mr Ovington’s vehicle.
“He grabbed a bar from his car boot and came running. I had to reverse back,” Mr Ovington said, adding that he drove off before Mr Molloy, of Raheen, Baltinglass, came too close.
He said he then phoned his mother, who advised him to report the matter to the gardaí. He claimed he had been scared and had previously received aggressive phone calls from Mr Molloy.
Under cross-examination by solicitor Joe Farrell, the witness’s account was challenged. When asked whether there was any history between the parties, Mr Ovington initially said he had no idea why he had been receiving the calls before acknowledging “there was history, yeah”.
Mr Farrell pressed him on the point, noting he was under oath. Mr Ovington then offered that he had gone to school with Mr Molloy’s daughter.
Mr Farrell put it to the witness that his client claimed that Mr Ovington had been behind him in a Volkswagen Bora, flashing his lights. He also put it to him that Mr Molloy alleged Mr Ovington had called him “a fat bastard”, to which the witness replied it was the other way around, saying the exchange had taken place by phone while both men were in their cars.
When it emerged the two had spoken about “sorting things out”, Mr Farrell pressed him on what exactly needed sorting if, as he had claimed, nothing was going on.
Mr Farrell said Mr Molloy had told gardaí that his daughter and Mr Ovington had been at school together and that she had been put through hell and that his intention in taking the item from the boot had been only to frighten him.
The court also heard that Mr Ovington’s cousin, who was in the car with him on the day, was not present and had not been asked to give a statement.
Mr Farrell put it to Mr Ovington that he had, on occasion, followed Mr Molloy’s daughter Katy in his car, which he denied, also denying any intimidation, including on social media.
Garda Dillon gave evidence that she received a panicked phone call from Mr Ovington on the day, saying someone was driving after him, followed by a further call from his mother saying her son was being chased by a man named Johnny. She confirmed CCTV was obtained from the area and that on 22 January 2024 Mr Molloy attended Baltinglass Garda Station, viewed the footage and acknowledged it was him.
The court heard that counter-allegations were subsequently made by Mr Molloy’s daughter on 22 January and by his wife on 28 January, directed at Mr Ovington and another person. No admissions were made in relation to those matters.
Garda Dillon read from Mr Molloy’s statement, in which he described Mr Ovington following him, flashing his lights and verbally abusing him from his car window. He said Mr Ovington had put his daughter through hell, that she had been unable to attend school and that on one occasion at Dinn Rí, Carlow, he walked up to her and made a gesture mimicking a gun to her head, saying ‘bang, bang’.
“He has put Katy through hell,” Mr Molloy’s statement read. “I pulled out a stick, but I didn’t use it.”
Addressing the court directly, Garda Dillon said: “Judge, can I just say, it’s over a Snapchat he sent to her that she opened in front of her parents. She became extremely upset and this escalated the whole thing.”
Judge Carthy said there was “a credibility issue” with the complainant, noting that he had stated in direct evidence that there was nothing on social media of any nature regarding Katy.
“There is no case to answer here. Dismissed,” she ruled.
