The High Court has refused bail to three brothers accused of violent disorder in a June 2019 incident at a filling station in Longford town. The court found it probable that they would interfere with and intimidate the main prosecution witness if released, and that the first and second applicants also presented a likelihood of committing a serious offence.
The charges arise from an alleged group attack in which the complainant suffered slash wounds to his back, a black eye and a bump to his head. The prosecution relied on CCTV and the complainant’s identification of the applicants. The judgment records that the applicants acknowledged being at the scene and involved in an argument, but denied committing an offence. The charges have not been tried, and the presumption of innocence remains.
The prosecution opposed bail on grounds of witness interference and risk of further serious offences. Evidence at the bail hearing described five attacks on the complainant’s home and the nearby home of his brother: shootings in February 2020 and petrol bomb attacks later that month. The attacks were attributed to unknown perpetrators, and investigations were ongoing. The complainant said he feared the applicants and associated them and people connected with them with the attacks. He did not identify who carried them out. He also testified that the applicants had made threatening gestures towards him in town.
The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the attacks were connected to the applicants, directly or through associates, and were intended to intimidate the witness. She also accepted the evidence of threatening gestures. The court held that the prosecution did not have to prove the applicants personally carried out any attack. It concluded that intimidation was likely to continue if they were released, despite evidence that some attacks occurred while applicants were in custody.
The court considered whether bail conditions could address the risks and found that curfew, contact or residence requirements would not provide sufficient reassurance, given the nature and locations of the attacks and the finding that others could be directed to carry them out.
The first and second applicants were refused bail on both grounds: likely witness interference and likelihood of committing a serious offence. The judge found that the third applicant’s lack of other charges did not put him in a different category, given the evidence concerning intimidation. Bail was refused in all three applications. The ruling concerns bail only; it does not determine guilt on the underlying charges.