A Co. Galway farmer has been found guilty of using threatening, abusive and insulting words towards a neighbouring farmer during a long-running dispute that flared after a dog went missing.
At Gort District Court, Judge Adrian Harris found Brian Gill, 44, of Cahermore, Kinvara, guilty of the offences against Brian Murphy in two incidents, on 21 May 2025 and on 2 February this year. The court heard the words were used with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
Judge Harris did not convict Gill of either offence. Instead, he imposed the Probation Act for one year and told Gill that he must complete an anger management course if the Probation Service recommends it.
The judge said there was a context to the offences and that there was clearly ill feeling between the two men going back some time. He said Gill should not engage in behaviour amounting to such offences.
Disputed encounter
Gill told the court that his dog went missing on 19 May 2025 and that he received a phone call on 1 July saying the dog was 35km away. He said: “That dog did not walk 35 kilometres.”
In evidence about the 21 May 2025 incident at Caherawoneen South, Kinvara, Murphy said Gill accused him of stealing the dog and said “I will get you” when the two met while driving at around 9pm on a narrow road. Murphy said he did not know anything about the dog and did not say a word to Gill.
Martin Durack, counsel for Gill, said there was an agricultural background to the incident and that there had been disputes in the past about fences and other matters. In cross-examination, he asked Murphy whether there was animosity between the men and whether they were “not on each other’s Christmas card list”. Murphy replied: “Every time I am on the road he causes trouble.”
Defence account
Gill denied threatening Murphy. He said he only asked Murphy where his dog was and that Murphy called him a fool. Gill said he replied: “You are the only fool who sells top soil from his farm.” Asked whether he had threatened Murphy at any time, Gill said he had not.
Gill said three people had told him the dog was seen in the back of Murphy’s yard, but he declined to identify any of them. He said Murphy “had a sarcastic smile on his face as he usually does and that raised my suspicions”. Gill added: “He knew something about the dog — I don’t think he had the dog because the dog wouldn’t have gone to him.”
He described the dog as “a one person dog” and said there was “a sentimental attachment” and “a bit of history” involving the animal.
Long-running dispute
Under cross-examination by Insp. Daragh Browne, Gill said he was angry because the matter had been going on for the past 10 years with Murphy. Gill told Judge Harris: “This is the 15th time I have been in court over this fella — directly or indirectly.”
Insp. Browne said Gill remained very frustrated and still believed someone had removed the dog. Durack said that while Gill’s language may have been brusque, there was no threat and no intention to cause a breach of the peace.