Dad who dragged teenage daughter by hair through streets told police 'I can assault my own property'

A Newry man who seriously harmed his young girl by hauling her by the hair from an underpass before frightened spectators told police he was a "a liberated individual of the land" and didn't agree to being captured "for attacking his own property".Show more

The 54-year-old - who has not been distinguished to safeguard the youthful casualty showed up under the steady gaze of Newry Judges' Court on Wednesday accused of attack occasioning genuine substantial mischief, opposing police and criminal harm. -

Illustrating a timetable of the episode, the indictment expressed that on May 21, at around 10.40pm, police got a report of a little kid being hauled by a more established male close to the metro in William Road.

Police answered right away and kept the male, who opposed officials. They then talked with the female secretly; she recognized herself and let them know she was 17-years of age and that the male was her dad.
She detailed that she had been out for the day at a child shower in the city and was getting back to her dad's street number. She expressed that the litigant had moved toward her in the close by tram on William Road.

She likewise unveiled that her dad hit her on the rear of the head and afterward attacked her by punching her with a shut clench hand. She said her dad then, at that point, kept on hauling her by her hair along Boat Road and House of prayer Road while shouting at her.

The casualty was "very bothered and asked him consistently to stop as her nose began to drain".

Notwithstanding, the respondent kept on attacking her and shout to get up whenever she tumbled to the ground. Observers in the space attempted to mediate and requested that the respondent stop and he hollered at them to stay out of other people's affairs, that "she is my property".

Police joined in and noticed swelling and blood to the harmed party's face. She was then
Taken to Daisy Slope Clinic as she whined at discombobulation.

Police went to the emergency clinic where she was placed in a neck support because of head and neck wounds.

She detailed that her dad had harmed her purse throughout the attack.

The litigant was captured for attack occasioning genuine substantial damage and opposing police and passed on to guardianship.

At the hour of capture, he distinguished himself as
"a liberated individual of the land" and expressed that "he didn't agree to being captured for attacking his own property".

The casualty had experienced blackout; had two bruised eyes, busted nose, swelling and enlarging to her nose and collarbone, irregularity in her mind, and shrouded in injuries and scratches all around her body, and was in outrageous agony.

The respondent didn't draw in with police and was quiet during interview when the claims were put to him.

Notwithstanding, when acquired front of the care sergeant to be charged, he expressed: "I'm humiliated by the occurrence, I profoundly think twice about it. I didn't understand the wounds. Harming my daughter was not my plan. She had blood in her legs when I initially met her and her eyes were smooth. I'm extremely severe when she is out in organization. I had not seen her in five hours. It doesn't pardon what I did. I didn't understand the wounds. I in all actuality do lament that."
The respondent's specialist expressed up until that point his client had "introduced as a generally excellent dad and supplier and was on awesome conditions with every one of his kids".

"She went out midtown, and couldn't be reached. What's more, at the time he was out searching for her [and she was] in an underpass when he viewed as her. This is the point at which he laid hands on her and started to drag her home, and attacked her and it's for that timeframe that he can't offer any clarification."

The guard said the arrangement of realities "would be repulsive to any dad, or for sure any individual who might look at why as a dad would do that to his little girl".

That's what he added "this little kid sees no type of compromise not too far off" and that his client "perceives that the young lady is damaged and that his activities have made conceivably hopeless harm what was a decent and cherishing connection between the dad and the girl".
Area Judge Eamon Ruler made specific reference to the 54-year-old's remarks when defied by individuals from the general population and captured.

"There is something that hasn't been tended to in any of the documentation that has been put under the steady gaze of the court… the articulation he utilized when he was tested by individuals from the public while attacking his girl, 'she's my property, I'm a liberated person, I can do what I like with my property' and no place in any of these reports, has that been tended to or checked out.

"I ."