By Ronan Judge

A husband wore a body-camera “24/7” after being served with a Protection Order obtained by his wife, a court has heard.

The woman told Galway District Court she asked her husband multiple times to stop filming her in the family home.

She was giving evidence at the hearing of a case against her 41-year-old husband, who denied breaching a Protection Order on May 12, 2025, at a house in South Galway, contrary to Section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act.

The woman obtained the order at Galway District Court on April 11, 2025, and said that after the man was served with the order, he left for six days and returned wearing a body-camera.

She said he “wears it 24/7” and while there was no history of physical abuse, he was allegedly verbally abusive.

The woman told the court that on the morning of the incident, she was getting ready to bring the children to school, when she saw the body-camera in the kitchen.

She said she was being video-recorded and asked her husband to stop filming her.

The court heard the man said “move it if you want, I’m not moving it”.

The woman said that after she picked up the camera and put it in her hoodie pocket, the accused grabbed her, held her and “ripped” the camera from the pocket.

She said: “I was terrified, absolutely terrified, that my kids had to witness this.”

The court heard that the couple were in the process of getting divorced and the woman had moved away from Galway.

Under cross-examination from defence solicitor, Sheena MacCarthy, the woman denied turning off the camera as the incident occurred.

Ms McCarthy told the court it was her client’s position that he put his hands on his wife and retrieved the camera and that was the extent of the interaction.

In his evidence, the man said his wife’s evidence was “not true” and he bought the body-camera for his own protection after being served with the protection order.

“She was the one trying to provoke me all the time,” he said.

Inspector Brian Ryan said the camera had been recording on the morning of the incident and the accused had not supplied any footage to Garda Mark Lawless, who responded to the incident.

He said the court “would have all the evidence” it required had the recording been made available.

Judge Michael Connellan said the court had to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt to convict and the court noted the body camera footage from the morning had not been produced.

He said the victim’s evidence was that she was “terrified” and taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the court was satisfied to convict.

The man has no previous convictions and Judge Connellan imposed a €500 fine with recognisances fixed in the event of an appeal.

Funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme.