Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland

Man who 'savagely' assaulted his partner after drinking and taking cocaine jailed for 32 months

Paul Barry (37) told gardai his former long-term partner sustained her injuries in a fall in the bathroom.

A MAN WHO “savagely” assaulted his partner after he had been out drinking and taking cocaine while celebrating his birthday has been jailed for 32 months.

Paul Barry (37) later told gardaí his former long-term partner, Kim Fox, had sustained her injuries in a fall in the bathroom. Gardaí had been alerted after Fox’s daughter discovered her lying in a “pool of blood” in her bedroom while Barry was in the living room drinking cider.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard Fox had been in bed when Barry arrived home and she was knocked unconscious by the first blow.

Fox sustained soft tissue damage to her upper body and face, a fractured eye socket, three fractured ribs and two missing teeth. She was in hospital for three days.

Kim Fox told the court she has recovered physically but continues to suffer mentally. She said her daughter was also suffering.

“She found me in a pool of blood in the bedroom. She thought I was dead,” she said.

Barry, of Achill Road, Ballybrack, Dublin pleaded guilty to assaulting Kim Fox causing her harm at her home in Loughlinstown on 9 December 2018.

Barry has 17 previous convictions. These include a robbery and assault dating back to 2006, with the remainder being mostly road traffic offences.

“What motivated the defendant on the date in question is not clear but what is clear is that he savagely attacked the injured party in this case and beat her very badly,” said Judge Martin Nolan.

He said it seemed Barry made sure Fox’s daughter did not help her and ushered her out of the room but due to her daughter’s “quick thinking” the gardaí were alerted.

“She has physically recovered but is mentally traumatised as a result of this unprovoked serious assault,” said Judge Nolan. He also noted Barry’s “callous attitude” to Fox on the night.

He said there was no doubt Barry was under the influence of alcohol and drugs on the night but noted he had taken them voluntarily and was therefore responsible for his actions.

Judge Nolan said the only real mitigation in the case was his early guilty plea, good work record and expression of remorse.

He said it was a serious assault and Barry must undergo a reasonably substantial term of imprisonment. The maximum sentence for this offence in five years’ imprisonment.

Judge Nolan imposed a 32-month sentence backdated to when Barry first went into custody.

During the hearing, Kim Fox took the stand and outlined her injuries to Judge Nolan. She said that she had lost her job as a result of being off work for a month after the assault. She said she had lost weight and doesn’t eat or sleep like she used to. “I am living on my nerves,” she told the court.

Aoife O’Halloran BL, defending, said Barry had taken significant alcohol, as well as two grams of cocaine on the night. He had also drunk shots bought by his friends for his birthday.

O’Halloran said she was instructed to apologise for her client’s actions, which he knew were wrong. She said he hoped she is OK and that she could move on and do better in her life. Counsel said Barry was “very regretful” and he said he hated himself for what he had done.

Counsel said Barry began to use cannabis and tablets as a teenager, and had started to use cocaine recreationally, as a “social crutch” rather than as an addiction. She asked the court to take into account his early guilty plea.

View 27 comments
Close
27 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:22 PM

    ‘The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.’

    When my grandfather died young, my Granny had to go out to work to keep food on the table and a roof over the heads of their seven children, the youngest of whom were 10 years of age. The state did sweet f.a. to ensure that she wasn’t obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of her duties in the home, in fact they took his medical card off her because it was in his name.

    Article 41.2 is sexist, mendacious, outdated rubbish that isn’t fit for purpose. Get rid of it.

    217
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Thomas O' Donnell
    Favourite Thomas O' Donnell
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:28 PM

    @David F. Dwyer: Not sure what getting rid of the article would do in that situation. In fact, if that article was followed, your grandmother would have been properly looked after?

    132
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:46 PM

    @Thomas O’ Donnell: It wasn’t followed. It never is, as this article elucidates. What is the point of having something in the constitution that serves no purpose beyond being a bit insulting and making false promises?

    110
    See 4 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Joseph Mc Dermott
    Favourite Joseph Mc Dermott
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:16 PM

    @David F. Dwyer: plenty of mothers out there that wish to stay at home to bring up their children. What your proposing is taking that right away. I believe it should be more gender neutral. It should apply to mums or dads and not be exclusive

    35
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:31 PM

    @Joseph Mc Dermott: The hell I am. Mothers would have the right to stay at home regardless. The article does protect them and never has. What’s the point of it if it isn’t enforced? And it won’t be either. If it hasn’t since it’s inception, it’s not going to now with the current shower.

    27
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:39 PM

    @David F. Dwyer: The article doesn’t protect them and never has*.

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Fachtna Roe
    Favourite Fachtna Roe
    Report
    Feb 1st 2022, 12:26 AM

    @David F. Dwyer: Your point is clearly and cogently made. The State for all it’s false Roman piety is hypocritical in it’s practical effect.

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dearbhla O Reilly
    Favourite Dearbhla O Reilly
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:35 PM

    Ahhh McQuaid. What a peach he was. Took on his role with gusto. His legacy and the church’s legacy lives on. Lucky us eh? Especially women.
    And thanks Dev too.

    112
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Benny McHale
    Favourite Benny McHale
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:26 PM

    Just needs a tweak. Change “woman” to “A citizen”, and “her” to “his/her”

    73
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute The Bolt
    Favourite The Bolt
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 9:28 PM

    @Benny McHale: Isn’t it mad how something so simply solved, has people losing their brain over it. People are getting too touchy over terminology.

    42
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 9:47 PM

    @The Bolt: ‘People are getting too touchy over terminology.’

    The fact that it promises safeguards that it does not and never has delivered on is the problem. Terminology is the cherry on top. And to the OP, it needs more than a ‘tweak’, it needs enforcement or to be scrapped altogether. Obviously one is cheaper than the other.

    45
    See 2 more replies ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute The Bolt
    Favourite The Bolt
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:00 PM

    @David F. Dwyer: Well scrapping it serves no one. As you say, enforcement is what people should be fighting for, not terminology. I read your point about your nan, and no doubt its happened to many others. The fight should be that this shouldn’t happen to anyone, and hopefully and amendment would ensure that.

    19
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute David F. Dwyer
    Favourite David F. Dwyer
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:35 PM

    @The Bolt: Be realistic, enforcement has never happened and never will not happen. The state isn’t going to pay for anyone who wishes to be a homebody to do so. The article is a false promise. Better off without it if it can’t be fulfilled.

    15
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Honeybee
    Favourite Honeybee
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:02 PM

    The state has never recognised the role of women in the home, first by having laws that on marriage a woman could not remain in employment / lost half her wages on marriage. The role of caring for children/elderly/infirm was never acknowledged, women in the home had no rights, they were not seen as contributing to the economy/commerce and they relied on handouts from their husbands, they didn’t even have entitlement to health care and still have no proper provision for pension entitlements. It was sickening recently to hear Michael Martin speak about how women are valued when our history of how women were and are treated is a different reality. Look at the provisions of Article 41.2 and know they looked the other way when women needed to have their rights addressed under this Act, imagine if any woman had brought a challenge to vindicate her rights under the Act why they would have thrown the might of the state at her as they did in recent actions by women in healthcare on their deathbeds.

    73
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dearbhla O Reilly
    Favourite Dearbhla O Reilly
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 11:25 PM

    @Honeybee: well said.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Gavin Linden
    Favourite Gavin Linden
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 9:03 PM

    Maybe I see view this in the complete opposite it was intended but I think it should be viewed as a very positive article in the constitution to support those women (or indeed men) who choose to contribute to both their family and by extension the state by remaining at home full time at a certain period in their children’s life.
    Ok, words such as ‘duties’ are antiquated but it could be a tool to build a positive system for those such people.

    59
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Anne-Marie Keane
    Favourite Anne-Marie Keane
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 10:09 PM

    “endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home”

    Putting the misogynistic view/wording aside for a min, what did they do to ensure a mother didn’t have to work whilst trying to rear children & run a home? Was their monetary value/recognition for the woman? Entitled to a pension? No.

    There should be a vote to keep it but change the language so that it states parents and not mothers. Enforce it to ensure that parents are protected & allowed the time needed to run a home & rear kids without monetary stress/ loss of pensions.
    Childcare costs are so high and it’s women that mainly suffer when it comes to deciding who reduces/leaves their employment to have a quality family life.

    41
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Neuville-Kepler62F
    Favourite Neuville-Kepler62F
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 9:00 PM

    Kick McQuaid’s can out the window, instead of down the road.

    Don’t miss this unique opportunity to express the positive contribution of equality in the home, care and work of all kinds .. and all the benefits it would deliver for all those currently undervalued by our society.

    Include “The Family Home” special status in the Referendum, to place Family Homes in their rightful place as primary and superior rights supporting primary constitutional values, in particular, human dignity (need for shelter / housing) and self-governance.

    General property rights would ONLY apply to the extent that the property interest immediately serves these primary constitutional values of human dignity (need for shelter / housing) and self-governance.

    https://www.change.org/p/irish-referendum-on-family-home-special-status

    17
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter O'Muiri
    Favourite Peter O'Muiri
    Report
    Feb 2nd 2022, 10:45 AM

    @Neuville-Kepler62F: Few property owners (more than 50% of the population) would vote for what you suggest. They prefer the present arrangements whereby the state can only seize private property under very limited circumstances and subject to full compensation. Neither would foreign direct investment be attracted to a country that might seize or confiscate its property, willy-nilly. The housing crisis won’t be solved by stealing. It will be solved (slowly, because we don’t have sufficient building workers anyway)principally by investment and the taxation needed to fund it. These are matters for the legislature elected by the people.
    (This doesn’t mean that changes aren’t needed to discourage abuses like deliberate dereliction. But this can be achieved by targeted taxes)
    Enforceable property rights, like freedom of expression are fundamental to a functioning civilised society.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Neuville-Kepler62F
    Favourite Neuville-Kepler62F
    Report
    Feb 5th 2022, 4:38 PM

    @Peter O’Muiri: .. good post.
    One couldn’t describe current Irish society as a functioning civilised society with a “locked generation”, rack rents by landlords (getting €7.4 billion of taxpayers money p.a. in HAP) and evictions.

    A referendum on housing was first called for in 1974 (Kenny Report) and if it was passed would have prevented the 2008 crash. We now know why FF & FG buried that one, representing the interests of Developers and Landlords, and the disaster it caused.
    A referendum has been called for again in 2014 by the Constitutional Convention. The German Constitution has such a provision to give special place to the Family home without adversely impacting on the German general property rights.

    We are waiting since 1974 for this Referendum on Housing after many less important referenda have been implemented to fix our badly defective Constitution.

    “All Irish citizens should be able to afford to own their own homes on average incomes in their own country” – NK62F

    Failing to permanently resolve housing by way of a Referendum will ultimately lead to civil unrest – one small spark!

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute eitrebor
    Favourite eitrebor
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 11:45 PM

    Have never come across any instance of this being legally tested through the courts but would enjoy knowledge if it has – the language appears clear on ‘economic necessity’ & I genuinely have wondered to myself why women & their partners have not tested it where maternity benefit was not topped up by the state to the level of their wage/salary to allow them the first few months with newborns in particular where they may wish to but cannot stay with them due to their economic necessity, lack of funds, needing to return to work etc. Generally economic issues are non justiciable due to Art 45 but this is a clear statement signalling economic circumstance & a positive requirement on the state. Have thought about this aspect several times whilst noting the anachronistic nature of the text.

    14
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter O'Muiri
    Favourite Peter O'Muiri
    Report
    Feb 2nd 2022, 10:15 AM

    @eitrebor: I witnessed one instance. At the end of a Circuit Circuit Court sentencing hearing of a woman convicted of defrauding pensioners in a scam which netted her almost €10K. The defence counsel pleaded that because she was mother of two children sending her to prison risked the children being taken into care, and this would , inter alia, be in contravention of the Article. In any case, the judge didn’t imprison her, but didn’t indicate whether this decision was influenced by Article 41.2, or just by the reluctance of Irish judges to lock up female criminals generally.
    Perhaps the present wording should be removed and replaced by one to compel gender-neutral sentencing!

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute eitrebor
    Favourite eitrebor
    Report
    Feb 2nd 2022, 5:44 PM

    @Peter O’Muiri: thanks for the insight. I suppose in one sense given the interpretation/applicability of Art 34 a Circuit Court judge would correctly leave constitutional interpretation to the superior courts and not seek to advance new ground obiter in such a sentencing.

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Cian
    Favourite Cian
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 8:54 PM

    The only people I can see it insulting is men? How is it ensuring to women to get preferential treatment haha

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tom Molloy
    Favourite Tom Molloy
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 11:21 PM

    @Cian: A positive take on it is needed. The father of the children is been exhorted to provide for his wife and his offspring. Maternity hospitals are stressing the benefits of breastfeeding, will that be next to be called sexist instead of the wonderful and healthy option. ?

    12
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute andrew
    Favourite andrew
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 11:30 PM

    Its all about having a conversation about what we want in and out of the constitution we took out articles 2 and 3 to agree to the Good Friday Agreement 1998 and their are those that would like a right to a home to be a constitutional right, its apalling we have such homelessness so it is welcome we are talking about changing the constitution.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Dearbhla O Reilly
    Favourite Dearbhla O Reilly
    Report
    Jan 31st 2022, 11:49 PM

    @andrew: people have been asking for this particular change for decades. So I guess its a priority for a great many. As for changes and conversations, we have had 33 f them leading to amendments. It’s a well written document despite the church’s input. Robust and more democratic than many and more changes can still be made. The right to a home is a good debate to have on it. We are good at debate on constitutional issues. Bring it on.

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter O'Muiri
    Favourite Peter O'Muiri
    Report
    Feb 2nd 2022, 10:31 AM

    @andrew: Some people are under the illusion that creating ‘paper’ rights is the answer to all our problems. It isn’t. The present Russian constitution contains express rights to housing and free health-care. Visitors to Moscow will bear witness to the thousands sleeping on the streets (in spite of constant police harassment and violence). Russians also enjoy a life-expectancy almost 10 years less than we do in Ireland and Western Europe.
    Creation of social entitlements, and how they are to be paid for are best left to the legislature answerable to the people – and sackable by them. Like in Sweden and the other Nordic nations which have short constitutions which set out the organisation of the state, the balance and division of state power, and a few fundamental rights (such as freedom of expression and assembly)

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Lyn Brookes
    Favourite Lyn Brookes
    Report
    Feb 1st 2022, 5:55 PM

    How many women have actually taken the state to court to in order to receive financial hep and benefits to raise their family rather than having to head out to work every day. How many women have to leave the family home due to having an abusive partner and have to fight tooth and nail to get housed and then live on the poverty line. Most women have to go out to work in order to provide the household with essentials, one wage is simply not enough any more. The constitution is quite clear, so why are women being forced to take jobs in order to provide heat and food.

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Máire Daly
    Favourite Máire Daly
    Report
    Apr 5th 2022, 9:06 PM

    I was talking to a Community Welfare officer about this, he said ‘this clause in the constitution is the reason we don’t force lone parents to get a job, as if they were on the dole, it gives them space to raise their children’.

    So yeah, it’s a good clause, that has benefited lone (male) parents too.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Peter O'Muiri
    Favourite Peter O'Muiri
    Report
    Feb 2nd 2022, 10:02 AM

    Remove it. Period. The creation of social entitlements, and how they are to be paid for, is properly a matter for the elected legislature.

    1
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

Leave a commentcancel

 
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds