Mayo man found guilty of trespassing and threatened neighbour with a 'straightener’

A forty-two-year-old man who was found guilty of charges of trespassing and using threatening and abusive behaviour has agreed to vacate his rented accommodation and not have any contact with the injured parties following a case heard before Judge Vincent Deane at Castlebar District Court.

Stuart Henry, Meelickmore, Claremorris, pleaded not guilty to three charges relating to three different dates which included trespassing on a neighbour’s property, threatening and abusive behaviour and a breach under the Public Order Act.

Judge Deane found the defendant guilty on two of the charges but dismissed a third charge under the Public Order Act on the basis that the evidence did not reach the level of proof needed to warrant a conviction.

The court heard that the charges arose out of incidents involving the defendant and three of his neighbours.

During the hearing, which lasted over two hours, three men gave evidence of verbal altercations and other issues that had taken place between themselves and the defendant over a five-year period which had begun when the defendant moved into rented accommodation which was between two of the houses occupied by two of the complainants.

The third person who also gave evidence of issues that arose between him and the defendant lived across the road from the defendant.

Inspector Ciaran Diffily said gardaí in Claremorris had received complaints from three residents in the area where the defendant lived, concerning incidents which occurred on October 13, 2024, a second incident on October 29, 2024, and a further incident on October 15, 2025.

Keith Mullaney told the court he had been away with his family visiting in-laws on October 13, 2024, when he received a phone clip video at 12.07 a.m. of a bare-chested man coming in around the back of his property with something in his hand.

The video footage was shown in court and Mr. Mullaney said he had absolutely no doubt that the man trespassing on his land was the defendant.

He went on to say that he had issues with the defendant going back years and he and his family had been living in fear following other incidents which had taken place.

Although the defendant’s face could not be seen in the video footage, Mr. Mullaney said he was absolutely in no doubt it was the defendant.

“I knew by the cap he was wearing and the way he walked. I know myself it was him,” he said.

He approached the defendant some days later and asked what he was doing trespassing on his property. Mr. Mullaney said the defendant asked him if he had any proof.

“He also sneered and laughed at me when I put it to him about his trespassing on my property, while he also made a remark about my deceased mother, saying I should go and say a pray for her at her grave,” said Mr. Mullaney.

Witness added that he has a wife and family and was often working late at night and was worried about them.

“We have been living in fear of him for years as I am often working late at night,” he said.

Mr. Matthew Kenny, solicitor for the defendant, put it to Mr. Mullaney that there was a lot of resentment towards his client as he was living in rented accommodation.

Witness said he had spoken to the landlady who rented the property and related incidents which had taken place by the defendant, but nothing had happened.

Judge Deane refused an application by the solicitor to have the particular trespassing charged dismissed on the basis that the face of the defendant was not visible in the video footage and in his view they were going on the evidence that it must be him, based on his walk and clothing.

Judge Deane said the video evidence was very clear and while the face of the trespasser could not be seen, in some cases facial recognition did not have to be proven and in his view the defendant had a case to answer.

The incident which occurred on October 29 was then heard and involved a verbal altercation between Kenneth Mullaney (no relation to the last witness, Keith Mullaney) and the defendant.

Mr. Mullaney said he and his family reside in the house next door to the defendant. On the evening in question, he arrived home and had to pull in close to the defendant’s house as his wife was driving out their driveway.

The defendant had traffic cones outside his property which made it difficult at times to get by, especially since he was waiting for his wife to exit the drive.

At the same time the defendant was trying to drive out of his driveway and claimed he was being prevented from doing so by Mr. Mullaney’s trailer, which was attached to his vehicle.

“I was waiting for my wife to leave as there was no room for me to pass so I had to stop outside his property,” said Mr. Mullaney.

It was while waiting in his car with his 14-year-old son that the defendant shouted at him, ‘what’s your problem?’.

“I said in reply, you are my f…ing problem,” said witness.

At this stage Mr. Mullaney said the defendant came up to the window of his car in a threatening manner with a clenched fist.

“He threatened to take me out for a ‘straightener’ and to take me down the field. He was psycho, he was frothing at the mouth, his eyes were bulging and then he went off down the road,” said witness.

Cross-examined, witness said he did get involved in verbal altercation with the defendant but denied he had started the row and denied he had purposefully pulled up his jeep and trailer to prevent the defendant from getting out his own driveway.

When it was put to him by the defence solicitor that he would prefer if his client had gone from the area entirely, witness replied 'yes'.

The third charge related to a breach under the Public Order Act which concerned a third neighbour who was living across the road.

Gary Mullins said he was bringing his own daughter and the daughter of a neighbour home from school on the evening in question when he met the defendant on the road.

He said the defendant gave him ‘the finger’ gesture as he passed him by.

Witness said he was concerned for the children in the car and kept going, getting both home.

He had been driving on the road on other occasions when the defendant was carrying a torch and shining it into people’s faces.

The defendant told the court the video footage showing an alleged trespass on Keith Mullaney’s property was not him.

In relation to the second charge which involved Kenneth Mullaney, he said they had become involved in a verbal argument. He said it was Mullaney who pulled up his jeep and trailer which blocked his exit from his own house.

He denied he started the verbal row but said he did get out of his car to see if any damage had been done by the trailer to his car.

In relation to the defendant threatening Kenneth Mullaney with a ‘straightener’, witness said he didn’t know what the word straightener meant.

Judge Deane told the defendant that a straightener in his book was a threat to ‘give a fellow a box’.

Inspector Diffily put it to the defendant that not only did he threaten the injured party with ‘a straightener’ but he asked him to come out of his vehicle and come down the field.

The defendant had not been involved with his neighbours for the last nine months and was planning to leave his rented house very shortly.

He denied giving the ‘finger’ gesture to Mr. Mullins although he did see him driving on the road but denied he made any gesture with his finger.

Judge Deane said the public order breach in relation to the ‘finger’ gesture to Gary Mullins did not reach the threshold for a conviction and he dismissed the charge.

However, he had no doubt that the defendant was not telling the truth in relation to what happened in the verbal altercation with Mr. Kenneth Mullaney and was satisfied the defendant was guilty of the charge of threatening and abusive behaviour.

Judge Deane also found the defendant guilty of the charge of trespassing.

Before passing sentence, Judge Deane gave the injured parties the opportunity to make a victim impact statment if they so wished.

Both Keith and Kenneth Mullaney spoke about the psychological trauma they suffered while the defendant was living in the area and the fears they have for their own safety and that of their families.

They urged Judge Deane if he could include a condition in his sanctions that the defendant would have no contact with them or their families.

The court heard the defendant had no recent convictions but had 15 previous convictions mostly related to motoring offences going back to 2013.

Judge Deane said a suspended sentence was something he had in mind, but he did offer the defendant the opportunity of engaging with the probation service if it might help.

Solicitor for the defendant, Mr. Kenny, said he didn’t think any engagement with the probation service would be of any benefit to his client who was anxious to leave this behind him.

He was going to leave the area, which would probably suit everyone. His client had indicated he would be willing to leave by September 18.

In the circumstances, Judge Deane said he would impose a five-month jail sentence suspended for five months on the charge of trespassing if the defendant was gone from the property by the date specified.

The judge also included a condition that the defendant have no contact with the injured parties.

(Funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme).