Bail has been refused for a man described in court as “a violent perpetrator of domestic abuse against his pregnant ex-partner”.
Craig Hanna, 30, of Lancastrian Court in Banbridge, appeared before Armagh Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday charged with grievous bodily harm, false imprisonment and common assault.
A detective constable, objecting to bail, said there have been “two incidents now within weeks of each other, one of which had an independent witness – both are serious in nature”.
She said it was her belief that if Hanna was released, he would interfere with the victim and further offending would occur.
“To release Mr Hanna would be putting the injured party at significant risk; I strongly believe he will pursue the IP, as she’s pregnant with his child, despite her trying to move on,” the officer told District Judge Anne Marshall.
A prosecutor told the court that on May 1, police received a report regarding a possible assault that had taken place in a car in the Banbridge area.
A member of the public reported witnessing a black Audi travelling in the direction of Lurgan. He saw a male passenger assaulting the female driver several times.
He stated that he observed the man punching the woman to the top area of her head. He reported that the man had pulled the handbrake, causing the vehicle to come to an immediate stop.
Police then stopped the vehicle in question on the Lurgan Road in Banbridge and spoke to the female.
Officers noted bruising to her left cheek, bruising to the right side of her jaw, and redness to her neck.
The woman stated she was not assaulted at any point, but “appeared upset and shaken”. At that stage, she did not want to make a statement of complaint.
The defendant was seated in the front passenger seat of the vehicle, and police had become aware that he had active court bail conditions and had breached them by being in direct contact with the alleged injured party.
When interviewed, Hanna stated he did not assault the injured party at any point.
He stated his phone was on charge on the woman’s side of the vehicle, and she would not give it to him, so he took off his seatbelt, went across, and took possession of the phone.
He stated that the lead of the charger was wrapped around the handbrake, causing it to lift up when he retrieved the device.
In relation to the GBH and false imprisonment charges, the court heard that police had received a third-party report of a possible domestic between the pair.
The initial report detailed that she had sustained two broken fingers as a result.
Police attended the injured party’s home address but there was no answer at the door.
While police were waiting outside the address, the injured party’s brother-in-law informed them that he had gotten her out of the house and that she was currently in his car.
Police spoke to the injured party, who appeared very reluctant to disclose any information but eventually revealed that she was nine weeks pregnant with Hanna’s child.
She told police that on April 16, she and the defendant were in her vehicle when he grabbed her hand, causing a suspected break to her left-hand ring finger. She said that she had moved into Hanna’s address a few months ago and that, since the beginning of their relationship, he had taken her phone to check who she was messaging.
On April 17, she alleged that he wiped her phone of all its contents as he thought she was going to leave him. She said that on the night of April 17, Hanna locked all the doors of the address and did not tell her where the keys were.
She believed that he was trying to prevent her from leaving.
When questioned by a defence barrister, the officer confirmed that the alleged injured party has not engaged with police at any level since the complaints were made.
“I’ve been in contact with her on quite a few occasions, but she has refused to make a statement,” the officer said.
The defence barrister added: “My instructions are that the complainant in the case has actually signed with the Housing Executive to remove her name from that property in order to assuage police and court concerns in respect of this applicant.
“I understand she is living at present in a property in Portadown but is spending most of her time in England, where her father resides.”
Judge Marshall refused bail, stating: “I do not consider he’s an appropriate candidate for bail. Notwithstanding the lack of statements, there is some other evidence — certainly in relation to one of the cases, if not both — so I’m going to refuse bail because of the risk of reoffending, the risk of not keeping conditions, and the risk of interference with the witness.”
The case was adjourned until June 24.
