A Co Galway farmer has been found guilty of using threatening, abusive and insulting words towards a neighbouring farmer in a long-running dispute that flared after his dog went missing, but he was spared a conviction.
At Gort District Court, Judge Adrian Harris found Brian Gill, 44, of Cahermore, Kinvara, Co Galway, guilty of engaging in threatening, abusive and insulting words against Brian Murphy with intent to provoke a breach of the peace in two separate incidents on May 21, 2025, and February 2 this year. The judge 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.
Judge Harris said there was a context to the offences and that there was clearly ill feeling between Gill and Murphy going back some time. He said Gill should not engage in behaviour amounting to these offences.
Missing dog and disputed encounter
Gill told the court that his dog went missing on May 19, 2025, and that he received a phone call on July 1 saying the dog was 35km away. He said the dog did not walk 35 kilometres.
Murphy gave evidence about the May 21, 2025 offence at Caherawoneen South, Kinvara. He said that he and Gill met as they were both driving at around 9pm on a narrow road, and that Gill accused him of stealing his dog and said he would get him. Murphy said he did not know anything about the dog and did not say a word to Gill.
Counsel for Gill, barrister Martin Durack, said there was an agrarian background to the incident and that there had been disputes in the past about fences and similar matters. In cross-examination, Durack asked Murphy whether there was animosity between the two men and whether they were not on each other’s Christmas card list. Murphy replied that every time he was on the road Gill caused trouble.
Defendant denies threat
In his evidence, 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 that Murphy was the only fool who sold top soil from his farm. Asked whether he had at any time threatened Murphy, Gill said he had not.
Gill said he had been told by three different people that the dog was spotted in the back of Murphy’s yard, but he declined to identify any of the three. He also said Murphy had a sarcastic smile on his face, as he usually does, and that this raised his suspicions. Gill added that he did not think Murphy had the dog because the dog would not have gone to him. He described the dog as a one-person dog that wanted only him, and said there was a sentimental attachment to the animal and a bit of history that he would like to leave at that.
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. He told Judge Harris that this was the 15th time he had been in court over “this fella”, directly or indirectly. Insp. Browne told the court that Gill was still very frustrated and still believed that someone 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.