Tense stand-off over unread note at centre of protection order breach
No caption needed
A MARRIED couple, now locked in a bitter separation but still sharing the same home, returned to Carlow District Court last week as a protection order breach was alleged to have unfolded over a balled-up handwritten note, a spilled breakfast and months of simmering tension.
The in-camera hearing, meaning that the parties cannot be identified, was presided over by Judge Geraldine Carthy. The husband, who is the complainant, told the court that the incident on 22 July 2025 was the culmination of escalating rows between him and his wife as they go through the divorce process while continuing to live under the same roof.
Taking the stand, the husband said the day had begun with an argument “about toilet roll”, but that the real issue was a message he wanted his wife to receive from a car dealer. She had recently lost her phone and handbag, he explained, and he had given the dealer his number as her temporary contact.
“The day prior to this, a car dealer had called my number four times to ask her to contact them,” he said. “She would ignore it, so I used to send her an email, and I started making handwritten notes. She was more than likely to tear them up before reading them, so I made sure to take pictures on my phone.”
On the morning in question, he said he was sitting down to breakfast when she pushed in his chair to get past. She spotted the A4 note he had left on the table.
“She bundled it into a ball and put it in my cup of coffee, and she messed up my breakfast on the table,” he told the court. “I said ‘you’d better read that note’. I said ‘what did you do that for?’ and she pushed my breakfast around the table.”
He said he warned her he would call gardaí because a protection order had been granted the week before. When he stood to get his phone, she flattened out the paper and “pushed it into my face”.
“I tried to get away and she pushed me on the chest, on the shoulders,” he said. “I said ‘stop, I’ll call the guards’. She caught me between the couch and the corner of the room and continued shoving and pushing me.”
He ultimately phoned gardaí.
Inspector Conor Nolan asked how he felt at the time.
“I don’t want to be calling the guards, they have enough to be doing,” he replied. “It’s my only option to get her to stop … I shouldn’t have to go through that.”
Defence solicitor Joe Farrell asked the husband: “Surely the way to handle this is not to have any contact,” to which he replied: “I should be able to communicate without being shouted at and shut down.”
Mr Farrell continued: “You’re here to prosecute her for breach of order – you know she could face a conviction?”
“I understand,” said the husband, adding: “I pleaded with her to stop or I’ll call the guards and the consequences are us here like we are today.”
The defence solicitor went on to suggest that the complainant “didn’t have to live in the house”, to which he replied that while it was in his wife’s name, it is “the family home”.
“Do you think she’s well?” asked Mr Farrell.
“She has suffered two strokes and I take that into consideration,” said her husband.
“Are there any neurological shortcomings? Any recall issues?”
“Yes, that’s the reason I send her notes; she’ll ask the same question eight or six times,” he replied to Mr Farrell.
Mr Farrell observed that the pair had been “in and out of court for various different matters”, asking why the husband continued trying to communicate with her at all.
“Do you think she wanted that note (on the day in question)?” he asked.
The husband replied: “The note could say she won a million quid and she’d tear it up.”
Pressed further on what he hoped to achieve in court, he said: “That she will realise she has to stop … we’re going through divorce, we have to live in harmony. She cannot keep attacking me.”
“I cannot say none of it is on my end,” he admitted, adding in defence that his notes were intended to help with her memory.
Garda Daly gave evidence that a domestic violence protection order had been served on the woman on 17 July, a week before the alleged breach. She had been advised to keep away from her husband and the consequences of a breach had been explained. “She said she understood,” he told the court.
On 22 July, he attended the house after the husband reported that he had been pushed and that he felt “in fear”.
“At 9.55am, I arrested her on foot of a breach of order,” Garda Daly said. “I explained the reason and cautioned her. She made no response.”
Under cross-examination, he agreed that the woman showed signs of short-term recall problems and had told him she was not aware the protection order had already been granted.
When the wife took the stand, she said she needed to be reminded of the specific date but insisted the complainant’s account was exaggerated.
“The toilet roll comment is absurd,” she said. “He wants money, insisting I buy my own toilet roll … I buy all the domestics.”
She recalled past events: “He has grabbed my arm”, adding she has had scans and has a weak wrist and sprained shoulder, that she had been “extremely healthy” before this, as she claims could be confirmed by her family doctor.
“Ask him why he has no injuries. I’m a nervous wreck,” she added.
“I built my own home,” she said, describing often retreating to her bedroom around 6pm with a cup of tea because she felt unwelcome downstairs, that he would shout at her if she came down.
“He has the full luxury of the fire … the house is in my name, I pay the property tax,” she explained.
The defendant denied putting the note in the coffee cup, saying “it wouldn’t have fit”. She accepted she may have pushed him, but only because “he was in my face”.
“I wouldn’t push another woman,” she said, “but there was a 16-stone man in front of me; I can’t move to the left or right if he blocks me. All I wanted was a cup of tea and to get away from him. I can’t stand being in the same room as him.”
Judge Carthy said the court was dealing with a section 33(1) matter and noted that there had been “a number of other applications” regarding the couple.
“There is no doubt about it, this is a very sad case,” she said, acknowledging the difficulty of both parties continuing to live in the same property. She found that the threshold for a breach had been reached, but stressed the significance of imposing a criminal conviction, particularly given the husband’s own statement that he “doesn’t particularly want to be here”.
Seeking to encourage stability, she remanded the woman on continuing bail until March 2026. If there are no further incidents, she said, she would be persuaded to apply the , thereby avoiding a conviction, which she believed would be “a fair outcome for all parties”.
“I would like to see peace in the house,” the judge said, before adjourning the matter.
