Alleged cat shooting, threats and racial slurs at centre of bitter dispute between Wicklow neighbours
The Wicklow PeopleA long-running dispute between neighbours in Wicklow, involving allegations of shooting a cat, racial slurs and threats to burn down a family home, ended without a civil restraining order, after both parties agreed to undertakings.
A woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared before a sitting of Bray District Court seeking an order against her elderly neighbour.
Solicitor for the applicant, Dermot Hickey, explained that the dispute relates to “intimidation over a number of years” between his client and the respondent, who have been next-door neighbours for nearly 30 years.
It was noted that she has had CCTV in place since May 2026.
She told the court that in 2002 her cat ran across the respondent’s shed, and he allegedly shot it with a high-powered BB gun. It is alleged the cat was taken to a vet, but had suffered a broken back and later died.
She told her solicitor that on December 2, 2024, another of her cats disappeared and was “never seen again”.
In February, she claimed her neighbour said that the cat “was killing his birds”.
A third cat was found in the back garden of the respondent in a cage. The applicant said she placed a ladder against the adjoining fence, so her daughter could climb over to rescue the animal.
In August 2025, the woman alleged that she came back from work to find the respondent parked in front of her property and blocking access to her driveway.
The following day, she said she told him to “fuck off”, while he was in the presence of a friend, adding: “I’m surprised you have any friends.”
She said he then made a “gun motion” in her direction.
Counsel for the respondent, Ciara O’Brien, argued the relevance of the evidence, as it is now July 2026.
Mr Hickey outlined that the “catalyst” behind the application was an argument between the pair, during which the respondent is accused of threatening to “burn down the house if there weren’t kids there”.
Ring doorbell footage was played to the court, in which the man could be heard saying: “I’m going to kill that black c**t”, which was aimed at an occupant of the applicant’s house.
A six-foot-high fence was built by the respondent to separate the back gardens of the two houses.
Ms O’Brien said she was instructed that her client has never owned an airsoft gun, but instead holds a firearms licence for legally owned firearms.
The matter was adjourned until Monday, July 6, with the respondent, who is aged in his seventies, giving evidence that he has lived at his home address for more than 50 years.
He said that he had the cage where the cat was found to stop foxes entering his back garden, adding that he had captured three cats belonging to unknown owners and released all of them unharmed.
When asked about the incident captured on the Ring doorbell, he claimed that a resident of the applicant’s house “asked him out to fight and called him obscenities”, which he said caused him to “let go”.
He told the court that he apologised for the racial remark.
Mr Hickey argued that his client required the protection of a court order.
He said that when his client walks into her back garden, “the Great Wall of China is down her back garden”, adding that both parties should be able to go outside in peace.
It was pointed out that the man holds a licence for long-distance rifles and a shotgun, but none for a BB gun. “It’s totally untrue and never happened,” said the respondent.
Mr Hickey added that an air rifle with less than one joule of power doesn’t need a licence.
The respondent said that a weapon of that joule would not have killed the applicant’s cat, adding: “That’s a very serious offence. If a woman went to gardaí with a dead cat, they wouldn’t overlook that.”
He accepted that one of the applicant’s cats had become trapped in the cage, but claimed the applicant had “about 90 cats”, which were killing his pets.
He further claimed that he had not been trying to gain the cats’s confidence by feeding them.
The pensioner apologised again for the racial slur and accepted making a hand gesture that could have been misconstrued as a gun motion.
His barrister said that the relationship between the neighbours was “far from ideal”, but argued that the threshold for a civil restraint order had not been met.
Judge Paula Cullinane said there was “very little she can do in the circumstances”, adding that any order the court could make would “only do so much”.
She described the situation as “verging on ridiculous”. Adding that “good fences make good neighbours”.
The matter was adjourned until Thursday, July 9, to allow both parties an opportunity to discuss resolving the dispute by way of undertakings.
When the matter returned both parties agreed to undertaking, with no civil restraint order being made.