Suspended jail term for Mayo man who left neighbours in fear

A Claremorris 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.

Stuart Henry, aged 42, of Meelickmore, Claremorris, appeared before Judge Vincent Deane at Castlebar District Court where he 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 of the Public Order Act.

Judge Deane found the defendant guilty on two of the charges but dismissed the 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 took more than two hours last Tuesday, three local men gave evidence of verbal altercations and other issues that had taken place between themselves and the defendant. The incidents began when the defendant moved into rented accommodation located between the houses occupied by two of the complainants.

The third complainant who gave evidence lives across the road from the defendant.

Gda Inspector Ciaran Diffily said Gardaí in Claremorris had received complaints from three residents in the area where the defendant lived concerning incidents that occurred on October 13, 2024; October 29, 2024, and October 15, 2025.

In relation to the incident on October 13, 2024, Keith Mullaney told the court he had been away with his family visiting in-laws on the night in question when he received a phone clip video at 12.07am 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 property was the defendant.

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

Although the defendant’s face could not be seen in the video footage, Mr Mullaney said he was certain it was Stuart Henry.

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

Mr Mullaney added that he approached the defendant some days later and asked him about what he was doing trespassing on his property. He 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,” he told the court

Defending solicitor Matthew Kenny 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 told her of incidents involving the defendant, but nothing happened.

Judge Deane refused an application by Mr Kenny to have the particular charge of trespassing dismissed on the basis that the face of the defendant was not visible in the video footage and that the court was being asked to go on the evidence that it must be him, based on his walk and his 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.

Verbal dispute

The court then moved onto the evidence in relation to the incident on October 29, 2024, which 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 of their driveway.

He said 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 the witness.

Thhe defendant then got out of his car and came up to the window of Mr Mullaney's vehicle 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," said the witness, adding that the defendant then went "off down the road".

In reply to Mr Kenny, witness agreed that he got involved in a verbal altercation with the defendant but denied he had started the row. He also rejected a claim that he purposefully pulled up his jeep and trailer to prevent the defendant from getting out his own driveway.

When it was out to him by Mr Kenny that he would prefer if his client had gone from the area entirely, witness replied’ yes’. 

The third charge related to a breach of the Public Order Act on October 15, 2025. This incident concerned a third neighbour who was living across the road from the defendant. 

Gary Mullins said he was bringing his 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 his own daughter home and that of his neighbour.

Mr Mullins told the court he had been driving on the road on other occasions when the defendant was carrying a torch and shining it into people’s faces.

A 'straightener'

The defendant then took the stand and said he was not the person trespassing on Keith Mullaney’s property.

In relation to the second charge, which involved Kenneth Mullaney, he agreed they had become involved in a verbal argument. He claimed it was Mr 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 the trailer had caused any damage to his vehicle. 

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.

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.

The court heard the defendant has not been involved in any incidents with his neighbours for the last nine months and is planning to leave the rented house very shortly.

Judge Deane said the alleged 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 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 on Keith Mullaney's property.

Before passing sentence, Judge Deane gave the injured parties the opportunity to make victim impact statements 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 to include a condition in his sanctions that the defendant would have any contact with them or their families.

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

Judge Deane said a suspended prison 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.

Defending solicitor Mr Kenny said he didn’t think any engagement with the Probation Service would be of benefit to his client who was anxious to leave these incidents behind him. Henry was going to be depart the area, which would probably suit everyone. He said his client had indicated he would be willing to leave by September 18 next.

In the circumstances, Judge Deane said he would impose a five-month jail sentence, suspended on condition that the defendant was gone from the rented property by the date specified. The judge also included a condition that the defendant have no contact with the injured parties in the case.

• Published as part of the Courts Reporting Scheme.