Longford man shot in foot by garda disputes claim bullet was ricochet from dog

A Longford businessman shot in the foot by a garda disputes claims his wound was the result of a ricochet after the bullet first went through a dog, a court has heard.

Husband and wife, Edward and Sharon Stokes, from The Cottage, Ferskill, Coolarthy, Co. Longford appeared before Judge Bryan Smyth at Dublin District Court today.

They are accused of knowingly providing false or misleading information to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (Gsoc), on February 5 2019. It allegedly happened at the watchdog's offices at 150 Abbey Street Upper, Dublin 1.

The offence is contrary to Section 110 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005.

They deny the charges and the case was adjourned until February 24 to set a hearing date in the district court.

Dublin District Court heard it was the State’s case a dog was involved, a Garda sergeant shot at the animal, and “it went through the dog and hit Mr Stokes’s foot”.

The sergeant was in fear when the dog came at him after he arrived at Mr Stokes’s business, Judge Smyth heard.

A State solicitor said it was not disputed that Mr Stokes was shot, but the dog had been the target.

Counsel for the defence said Mr Stokes denied both being hit as a result of ricochet or the existence of the dog, and his wife had recorded he incident on her mobile phone.

Mr Stokes will state that from the entry and exit wounds it was a “direct shooting”, counsel said.

Mr Stokes made a complaint to Gsoc that he was shot and was prosecuted for making a false accusation, the barrister added.

Outlining the background to the case, the defence said Mr Stokes was carrying out business replacing engines when a client from Cork arrived.

In the back of his client's car was a named Garda sergeant. Mr Stokes did not know why he was there.

The sergeant was allegedly unaccompanied by other gardai, and was asked to leave because he did not have a warrant, “and Mr Stokes ends up getting shot”.

Counsel said video footage showed the sergeant taking out a gun in a manner which the defence believed was negligent.

Legal aid was granted at an earlier stage.

The defence asked today for it to be extended to cover the cost of expert forensic and pathology reports, to examine the scene, possible ricochet markings and the bullet wound. Judge Smyth acceded to that request.

However, he did not did not grant an order sought by the couple’s lawyers to extend legal aid to pay for a UK based expert in policing procedures, or the downloading of recordings from Mrs Stokes’s phone, or a report from an animal behaviour expert, even though the couple there was no dog at the scene.

Earlier, Judge Smyth noted unemployed Mr Stokes was not in receipt of social welfare an queried, "How is he getting by?".

Mr Stokes said he was finding it difficult to get work.

Counsel said Mrs Stokes was in receipt of a domiciliary carer's allowance in relation to a family member. They did not address the court during the proceedings today.