Corkman tried to contact woman days after being served with protection order

The court heard the injured party received a friend request from the man on Instagram four days after the protection order was issued. File picture: PA

A 33-year-old Cork man who was served with a protection order in relation to a young woman who was in fear of him tried to befriend her soon afterwards on Instagram.

Also, the day after the friend request, the same man breached the protection order again by going into a shop and trying to talk to her.

This was the outline of events described by Inspector Dave Noonan when the accused man pleaded guilty at an in-camera sitting of Cork District Court to the two breaches of the protection order.

Judge Marian O’Leary asked for clarification on the evidence that the defendant had tried to befriend the young woman who had a protection order against him.

Insp. Noonan said the defendant was served on October 19, 2023, with the protection order not to have any communication with the young woman directly or indirectly and not to attempt to communicate her by electronic means. The inspector said: “On October 23 the injured party received a friend request from him on Instagram.” 

In relation to the second breach of the protection order the young woman was in a convenience shop the following day when the defendant came in and attempted to speak to her.

The accused pleaded guilty to both breaches. His previous convictions included several counts under the Public Order Act and one from June 2016 for harassment/stalking where he was given a four-month suspended prison sentence.

Defence solicitor, Michael Quinlan, said the defendant was pleading guilty to two counts of breaching the protection order because “he wants to get rid of it and move on with his life. He is grieving and is in counselling.” 

Despite the pleas of guilty, it was claimed by the defence that the friend request on Instagram was made two weeks before the protection order was served on him. The prosecution stated that the request was made four days afterwards and the accused did plead guilty to that count.

'Durable relationship'

Mr Quinlan argued that the protection order should not have been granted to the young woman in the first place as she and the defendant had only been going out together for two weeks. He said the legal position was that protection orders should only be given against a background of an “intimate and committed” relationship. 

Judge O’Leary referred to another legal definition of “a durable relationship”. Mr Quinlan said that whatever the definition of a relationship, a protection order should not have been granted where the two people were only together for two weeks.

In any event the protection order was in place in this case.

Judge O’Leary said she would dispose of it by giving the opportunity to make a €100 payment to the court poor box in respect of each count and that the charges would be struck out on that being done.