Protection order case hears about ‘hidden camera’
Judge Geraldine Carthy
A MARRIED couple who have been separated for the past six years but still live in the same house were at Carlow District Court last week over an alleged protection order breach involving a hidden camera and a threat to stop providing child maintenance.
The hearing, meaning the parties cannot be identified, was presided over by Judge Geraldine Carthy.
The wife, who is the complainant, told the court that on 20 September, after she came home from work, she saw an object plugged into a socket beside the headboard of a bed in one of the bedrooms. She told the court that upon closer inspection of the object, she knew it to be a hidden camera, as a few days previously, on 16 September, she had noticed a strange box on a shelf in the house, which contained the same hidden camera.
“I panicked when I saw it because why am I being recorded in my own house?” she said.
The woman then told the court that the bedroom in question was in “mine and my husband’s room”. However, the pair have not slept in the same room for six years, as they are separated.
The court heard that the pair’s young daughter lives in the same house, along with the woman’s adult daughter, her fiancé and their two children.
Two days after discovering the camera was plugged in, on 22 September, the woman went to the gardaí to report the incident as an alleged breach of a protection order.
The woman gave evidence that, a day after reporting the incident to the gardaí, her husband told her to “bring back what you have stolen from me”.
The woman also gave evidence to the court that, on 26 September, her husband told her that if she did not return the camera to him, he would stop paying child maintenance for their daughter. She also told the court that her husband said she would “regret taking the camera” and that she was “lying about everything”.
Insp Conor Nolan asked her if she felt scared or threatened by her husband during these instances, to which she replied: “I was scared during that conversation, and I am still scared now.”
When asked by defence solicitor Joe Farrell about who sleeps in the bedroom in which the camera was found, the woman said that her husband sleeps in it and that she had been sleeping in the living room for the last six years since they separated; however, her clothes are kept in that bedroom, she stated.
Mr Farrell said: “So, the camera was in the room where he was sleeping and the box was found in the room where he sleeps.”
In response, the woman said that it was not his room, as all her stuff is in there, but that he just sleeps there.
Mr Farrell continued: “Do you think he was recording to see who was coming in and out of the room?”
“He records everything,” said the woman, adding: “I mostly don’t go into the room, but when I need something, I have to.”
She said the box she found the camera in was right beside all her documents.
Mr Farrell then asked the woman why, if she felt so scared by the incident on 20 September, she had waited two days before notifying the guards.
“I am busy working and looking after my child,” she replied.
When asked by Mr Farrell if her husband was an inconvenience, the woman said “yes” and added: “I do not want my daughter to see his drinking, which happens every day and every night.”
Mr Farrell then said that he believed she was not afraid of her husband and that this dispute was all about money.
“I pay all the bills and rent,” she replied.
Arresting officer Garda Conor Hassett gave evidence that on 22 September, the woman presented herself at Carlow Garda Station and reported an alleged breach of the protection order due to the hidden camera that she had found two days earlier. Garda Hassett then arrested her husband and he was charged on 29 September.
In his evidence, Garda Hassett said there was an SD card attached to the camera when it was handed in to the station and that there were five files on it; however, he could not download the files and play the contents.
Mr Farrell asked Garda Hassett if the woman mentioned anything about her sleeping in the living room for the past six years, to which Garda Hassett replied: “In the statement, she referred to it as ‘my bedroom’.”
“How did she present herself to you in the station?” asked Mr Farrell.
“Not overly distressed, just worried about the camera,” replied Garda Hassett.
Garda Sharon Walsh then took the stand to give evidence that, following the alleged threat to stop paying child maintenance by her husband on 26 September, the woman said she felt “very threatened by him”.
The protection order against the woman’s husband was initially served on 12 September.
Mr Farrell told Judge Carthy that he did not believe that the threat of not paying maintenance was what section 33(1) of the (breaching a protection order) was designed for.
Judge Carthy said, in relation to the section 33(1) of the matter, that the court was not satisfied that the threshold in respect of fear had been reached. Judge Carthy also said, in respect of the second matter on the second date: “The threat of not paying any more child maintenance is not a threat to be convicted of a criminal offence.”
Judge Carthy said she was satisfied that the protection order “had been utterly abused by the woman” and ruled to discharge the order.
