Nocriminalcaseafter mansaweddownpoles

THE evidence against a man who sawed down telegraph poles in his garden was not strong enough to sustain a criminal damage conviction.

But 48-year-old Faolain O Fionnan of Ballyheigue, Garrylough, Screen was warned that Eir is free to take a civil action against him over the repair bill put by the company at more than €2,500.

Wexford Court heard from Eir quality checker Frank Reck that he found poles in Garrylough had been levelled in May of last year, with only stumps left in the ground. They were replaced but a couple of weeks later he returned to find one of the replacements had been cut off, with the words ‘No Poles’ carved into the timber with a chain saw.

Gardaí were called and O Fionnan approached Reck and made no secret of the fact that he was the person responsible.

Sub-contractor Denis Kelly confirmed to Judge Gerard Haughton that he found two poles damaged originally and then he was called in some time later to remove a third as there were concerns that it would obstruct the public road.

Eir’s senior investigations specialist Michael Finnerty was in court to put the cost of rep airs at €2,563. The accused man later gave a statement to Garda Michael Fitzpatrick at the barracks in Blackwater.

In the statement, he recalled how he bought the house at Ballyheigue in the summer of 2013.

There were three phone company poles on the property when he moved in. He felt that they affected his ability to maintain a fence to keep in his dog, so he began corresponding with the company by email.

He pointed out in these emails that he did not have a phone with Eir and gave the firm until March of 2015 to take the poles away.

In the end he waited until May, sending an email which announced ‘fences built, poles taken down’. Judge Haughton dismissed the case, pointing out that he was given no evidence as to whether the poles were on private or public property.

He concluded that the dispute between householder and telecommunications company was ‘a matter for the civil courts’.

The judge said he did not know whether O Fionnan was entitled to do what he did but it was clear that he believed he was.