Man accused of damaging his then partner’s phone by leaving it in a dog bowl
A MAN was accused of damaging his then partner’s phone by squeezing it in pliers and leaving it in a dog bowl.
The defendant, who denies one count of criminal damage, said he was “only pretending to squeeze it” and did it because she was “cheating behind my back”.
The Limerick Leader has not named the parties to protect the identity of the children.
The complainant, who took the stand in Newcastle West Court, said she was getting children ready for school on the date in question.
“I was upstairs putting on my son’s shoes. My daughter was downstairs - he told her ‘your mum doesn’t give a s*** about you’. He entered the bedroom, pinned me to the bed and put me in a headlock to get my phone. I said, ‘Please, can I get my phone back’. It was the only thing keeping me sane,” said the woman. She told the court she went downstairs and asked the accused for the phone back.
“He wouldn’t give it back. He squeezed the phone in pliers. He made faces at me. I found the phone in the dog bowl,” she said.
Inspector Barry Manton, prosecuting, asked what condition the phone was in. She said it was broken, crushed, cracked, the colours weren't normal and she could barely enter her password.
Michael O’Donnell, solicitor for the defendant, asked the woman if she had the phone. She said she lost it.
Mr O’Donnell said his client denies he broke it and asked her if she is in the habit of breaking phones? He then showed three broken phones belonging to the complainant.
Mr O’Donnell said he had a witness who will say the phone at the centre of proceedings was broken two days prior to the incident.
“It might have been damaged. I’m not sure. When I got the phone in the dog bowl it was worse,” she said.
Insp Manton asked the woman about the functionality of the phone prior to it being put in the pliers? “Grand,” she said. The garda inspector asked how the functionality was after it was put in the pliers? “No colour and I could barely put in my password,” she said.
The accused man entered the witness box. He said he pretended to squeeze the phone in pliers because “she was cheating behind my back”.
“The phone was already broken. It was totally cracked,” said the defendant.
Insp Manton put it to him that he put the phone in the teeth of pliers. “Yes, but I didn’t close it,” he said.
Insp Manton said liquid crystal display (LCD) is very fragile. “Yes,” said the accused.
Insp Manton asked was he absolutely confident he hadn’t squeezed the pliers? “Yes,” he said. The defendant agreed with the inspector that he was angry at the time.
Mr O’Donnell called the father of the accused as a witness. He said he saw the phone in question two days earlier at a birthday party. He said the complainant was on the phone and the screen was cracked.
Insp Manton queried how he saw the phone was cracked when it was up to the person’s ear and said it showed the phone was working.
Mr O’Donnell asked Judge Carol Anne Coolican to dismiss the criminal damage offence.
“There must be a doubt. The phone has been lost. Evidence was given that the phone was cracked two days before,” said Mr O’Donnell.
In response, Insp Manton said the complainant said the functionality of the phone was fine before it was put in the teeth of pliers which was “reckless”.
“There is no denial that the event occurred,” said Insp Manton.
Judge Coolican said there seems to be a conflict of evidence regarding the functionality of the phone prior to the accused putting the phone in a pair of pliers and whether he squeezed it or not.
“The phone is lost. I have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Dismiss,” said Judge Coolican.