‘Freeman’ dragged daughter through street, saying she was his ‘property’

A CHIP van owner “freeman” who dragged his daughter through the street telling passers by she was his "property" has been ordered to carry out community service.

Frank McCartney, 54, of O'Neill Avenue in Newry was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal damage at Newry Magistrates’ Court.

The court heard that on 21 May this year, police received a report at 10.40pm of a young female being dragged through the street in the vicinity of the Subway shop on William Street in Newry by an older male.

Police went to the area and spoke to several people who said they saw a man pulling along a teenage girl.

They then found both McCartney and the girl and separated them, speaking to the girl privately.

She told police she was 17-years-old and the man in question was her father, saying she had been out at a baby shower and was to return to her dad’s house afterwards.

The girl said she had stopped at Subway when her dad approached her in the shop and hit her on the back of the head and punched her.

He then dragged her by the hair along Boat Street and on to Chapel Street. She was very distressed and asked him to stop as her nose was bleeding. McCartney then shouted at her to get up when she fell to the ground.

McCartney then told passers by who tried to intervene to mind their own business, saying the young girl was “my property”.

The girl was then taken to hospital after complaining of having a light head and had to be placed in a neck brace due to her injuries. She suffered a concussion and two black eyes, also sustaining bruises and scratches all over her body.

Her handbag was also damaged during the incident.

When police spoke to McCartney he said he was a freeman of the land and couldn't be arrested for damaging his own property.

However, later on he adopted a different attitude and, when speaking to a custody sergeant he said he was embarrassed and deeply regretted his actions, saying it was not his intention to injure her.

He said he was very strict with his daughter and had grown concerned as he hadn't seen her for five hours.

Defence counsel stated that McCartney had referred himself to counselling following the incident.

He stated that at the time McCartney’s daughter was living between her mother and father’s homes and “at the time this happened he presented as a very good father, a good provider and was on very good terms with his children.

“The set of facts Your Worship has had to hear would be repugnant to any father or to any person.”

He added McCartney had no record for such actions and said his daughter “sees no form of reconciliation in prospect”.

McCartney's defence continued: “He recognises the girl is traumatised and that he has caused possibly irreparable damage to what was a good relationship.

“At the time when he was arrested he was not in a good place. The way in which he described his daughter to the public is something that was quite shocking but very quickly he realised what he had done.

“No matter what Your Worship does today he still carries this badge of an act of violence.

“The window in which it occurred was less than an hour. He accepted from the outset he did this and it was inexcusable to say the least. It has done great damage to him and his daughter and his family in general.

“There were other things in his mind and persons influencing him and I’m not blaming them but he certainly was not acting like a rational person at the time.”

District Judge Eamonn King, taking up the final point raised by McCartney's defence, expressed his disappointment that “the expressions used when challenged by members of the public” were not referred to in any of the documentation provided to him to assist in sentencing.

“He says, ‘she’s my property, I’m a freeman, I can do what I like with my property’, nowhere has that been addressed”, Judge King commented.

“Any right thinking member of society, any parent, any child hearing the facts would be interested in finding what was behind this.

“You have said on his behalf, and I concur, that there were other things going on in his life and those were manifest by his expression when confronted by other people.

“A freeman, someone who writes his own rules, someone who doesn’t comply with the rules of a normal democratic society and someone who feels he can anything.”

Judge King mentioned the first time the case had been brought before him and pointed out during those proceedings that McCartney was “still of the view that he was a freeman and could do whatever he liked and nobody would tell him otherwise”.

Addressing McCartney directly, Judge King said: “If you think back, I gave you the opportunity to reflect and took the time to explain to you the serious predicament you were in and you did reflect and changed your attitude quite dramatically, and you are nodding to me as I speak.

“This is a man who can understand when he makes the wrong choice and when he makes a mistake that he can listen to reason and take steps to deal with it in a different manner.”

Revisiting the freeman influences which appeared to be impacting on him, Judge King added: “I suspect what was on your mind was you were listening to the false philosophy that is all too frequently before the court. I hope as a result of this you will have reflected.”

He then sentenced McCartney to an enhanced combination order and told him to carry out 100 hours of community service and placed him on probation for 12 months, warning him he had “one foot inside prison”.