Judge not satisfied that man would stay away after breaching order

A MAN accused of breaching a protection order was remanded in custody after a judge said she was not satisfied he would stay away from the address at the centre of the case if he was released on bail.

The bail hearing, which was held in camera at Carlow District Court on Wednesday, related to a number of alleged offences arising from the same incident, including a breach of a protection order, an alleged assault causing harm and an alleged offence under the Theft and Fraud Offences Act.

The defendant, who cannot be named, is 46 years old and the father of five children.

The court heard that on Tuesday night, 6 January, gardaí were called to a domestic address in Kilkenny. Giving evidence, a garda said that when he arrived, the defendant was sitting at the back door of the house and was highly intoxicated.

The garda told the court that he spoke to the homeowner who said the defendant had entered the house through an open bathroom window. She alleged that he pushed her against a wall and said: “If I can’t have you, no one can.” According to the garda, the defendant then went into a bedroom, pulled a drawer from a chest of drawers and threw it at her, striking her on the shoulder. The injured party told gardaí she managed to push him out of the house through the back door.

The defendant was later arrested and detained at Kilkenny Garda Station.

The court heard that the injured party and the defendant had previously been in a relationship and that a protection order had been granted against him on 23 September 2025.

For the defence, solicitor Edward Hughes questioned the arresting garda on whether he knew the defendant lived at the address. The garda replied that he had never known him to reside there.

Mr Hughes said that his client claimed to have been living in the house for the past year. He told the court that while the injured party said the defendant entered without permission, his client believed he could return to the address because he understood it to be his home, despite the existence of the protection order.

The garda responded that the house was council accommodation, in the sole name of the injured party and that only one occupant was permitted.

Mr Hughes argued that if it were established that his client had been living at the property, then offences such as trespass or burglary would not arise.

In mitigation, Mr Hughes said the alleged assault resulted in no serious injuries and that no medical treatment was sought. He said the drawer was not broken and that there was only limited damage.

He told the court that his client had experienced difficult personal circumstances, including suffering clerical abuse at the age of eight. Mr Hughes said the defendant had struggled with alcohol addiction for around 30 years but had been off alcohol for the past year until the night in question.

The court heard that the defendant was attending counselling and was also engaging with the rape crisis centre. Mr Hughes said gardaí were aware of his complaint regarding clerical abuse.

“Sadly, my client says the relationship broke down yesterday,” he added.

The garda told the court there had been a previous alleged breach of the protection order on 26 December 2025. He also outlined an alleged breach on 26 November, when the defendant appeared before Wexford District Court and was granted bail on conditions that included having no contact with the injured party.

In court, the defendant said that if granted bail he would not return to the house and intended to stay at the Good Shepherd Centre in Kilkenny.

However, the arresting garda said that gardaí contacted the centre and were told there was no record of the defendant staying there and that they could not take him in at present.

When the defendant gave evidence, he said he would go to work if released, where he was due to work a night shift until 2am, and then “walk around” until the centre opened so he could request accommodation.

When concerns were raised that he might contact the injured party if released, the defendant replied: “No way.” He told the court that he met the injured party online and that they began a relationship around October 2024, moving in together shortly afterwards.

Under questioning, he accepted that he had struggled with alcohol addiction and had “fallen off the wagon” the night before. He agreed that he had been “triggered” and had been drinking.

He said he believed he was allowed to return to the house and acknowledged that he was aware the protection order was in place. Asked if he assumed he could go back to the property, he replied that he did.

He told the court he could not remember whether the injured party approached him when he entered the house.

Asked if he could assure the court that he would stay away from her if granted bail, the defendant said: “Yes. I’m done with drinking. I’ve been sad all my life. My health issues are really bad. The relationship is gone. I will no longer live there and I won’t contact her either.” The garda reminded him that his previous bail conditions included no contact with the injured party and asked whether he had been back living at the house. The defendant said he had.

“We have concerns you will contact her if given bail,” the garda told the court.

Mr Hughes said his client accepted he had returned to the house while intoxicated but suggested there was confusion about whether he believed he was trespassing.

Delivering her decision, Judge Geraldine Carthy said that if the council house was in the injured party’s sole name “he’s a trespasser full stop. He cannot live there.” She said she had concerns that the defendant would return to the property if he consumed alcohol again in the coming hours or days.

“He equally promised my colleague on Stephen’s day,” Judge Carthy said, adding: “How he thinks he can adhere to bail conditions and live in the property is beyond me.” The matter was adjourned to 13 January. The defendant was remanded in custody and directed to have a suitable address.