A woman has secured an interim barring order against her former partner after telling a court that the man, who has 31 domestic violence charges against him, may be temporarily released from prison.
The woman told Dublin District Family Court on Friday that she was “terrified” of the man. Before he went into prison, she said the man sent her 548 text messages over the space of a month which were “abusive”, “threatening” and involved him “begging” to be allowed back into her home.
The woman said the man had received temporary release from prison a number of times previously and had stalked her during these periods.
“He came to my home under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I had to change my job as he kept turning up at my place of work and I was terrified,” she said. “I was afraid to leave my home as I don’t know what he is capable of and he is always lurking around.”
Housing in Ireland is among the most expensive and most affordable in the EU. How does that happen?
Ceann comhairle election key task as 34th Dáil convenes for first time
Your EV questions answered: Am I better to drive my 13-year-old diesel until it dies than buy a new EV?
Workplace wrangles: Staying on the right side of your HR department, and more labrynthine aspects of employment law
In a sworn statement, the woman said before he entered prison on domestic violence charges the man was “bingeing on alcohol and cocaine and he kept myself and my daughter up all night, every night”.
The woman said she and her daughter’s mental health had become “very bad” due to his behaviour. She said her daughter had started to self-harm. The woman told the court the man is due to be released next year but he had told their daughter recently that he was seeking temporary release.
The court heard they were never married and the woman’s family owns the home that she and her daughter live in.
Judge Gerard Furlong said he would grant the woman an interim barring order on an ex parte (one side represented only) basis, which excludes the man from the property for eight days, and from watching or being near it.
He said neither he nor the woman knew if or when the former partner would get temporary release.
“There is a possibility it could happen imminently and for that reason I will give you the order,” the judge said. “We don’t normally give orders where they are not going to be utilised… but you don’t know exactly when he may be released.”
The judge said that if the man was released, he did not believe a safety order would be appropriate and that he was erring on the side of caution. A safety order would prohibit the man from using or threatening violence.
A full hearing, which the man is expected to attend, was set for a later date. The judge also said he was issuing a body warrant, meaning that if the man was still in custody he would be brought to the court for the hearing.
In a separate case heard at the court in Dolphin House, Dublin 2, on Friday, a woman secured an emergency safety order against her former partner after she said the man had “repeatedly strangled” her in front of their young child.
The woman said the man would not agree to be civil ever since their relationship ended and he has been “terrorising” her every time they meet for access to the child.
“The abuse is non-stop, even in front of family and friends,” she said. “He keeps ringing on no caller ID at all hours and is continuing to threaten me to the point where I am terrified of him as he is a violent man and has hit me on several occasions.”
The woman said on an occasion earlier this year, “he repeatedly strangled me… to the point I kept going to pass out”.
The judge granted the woman an emergency safety order on an ex parte basis and set a full hearing, which the man is expected to attend, for a later date.
The judge also told the woman there was currently no court order in place for the man to have access of their child and that she was the sole custodian and guardian. “Until and unless he ever gets a court order for access, you are in charge [of the child],” he told her.
The judge said he was not suggesting that the woman did not give the man access to their child, but could say access would only occur in situations she felt “happy and safe with”.
