Man accused of voyeurism at shopping centre toilet

A 58-year-old man has appeared before a special court sitting in relation to a charge of voyeurism in toilets at a shopping centre.

Patrick Mulligan, whose address can only be given as Fermanagh due to concerns for his safety, is charged with observing a boy carrying out a private act for sexual gratification.

The offending is alleged to have occurred on 30 December at Erneside Shopping Centre, in Enniskillen.

A police officer told Dungannon Magistrates' Court the charge could be connected.

She told the court the complainant was at the shopping centre with friends and went into the public toilets.

Mr Mulligan had allegedly been standing near the boy for a few minutes prior to this and followed him into the toilets, going into a neighbouring cubicle.

She said the boy saw Mr Mulligan "down on his hands and knees looking at him from under the cubicle divide".

Once outside the shopping centre he was challenged by security staff, a video of which was uploaded onto social media "receiving significant public and press interest."

Mr Mulligan was arrested for voyeurism the following day and interviewed, making full admissions.

Objecting to bail the officer said this was largely about "protecting the defendant".

"He and his family are worried about repercussions or being attacked."

She said the video had been "shared hundreds of times on social media and has received strong public opposition".

"The defendant is well known and readily identified. Police have classed this as a critical incident."

The officer accepted there were no previous convictions for any offending however, added, "police feel he is at risk if released to his home address given the interest on social media".

The defence lawyer said that when Mulligan was arrested "concerns were immediately raised around his "limited capacity and he was interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult".

"He has made certain admissions, but it is not an automatic assumption that he would receive a custodial sentence."

He said police were not pointing to risks of further offending or witness interference, rather bail was opposed out of fears for Mulligan's personal safety.

"It's bizarre that police cannot protect this man or put a safety plan in place and instead deprive him of liberty because of their inability to manage the situation," said the defence lawyer.

The judge asked if there was any specific threat to Mr Mulligan, to which the officer replied: "I'm not aware of that other than he was identified in the footage which has been shown far and wide which is readily available. It's a perceived threat rather than specific."

The judge said the decision was difficult particularly as the alleged offence was directed against a minor but "with some hesitation and indeed reluctance" bail would be granted.

While he initially said Mulligan should reside at an address approved by police, the defence objected as "this puts him in a position, not of his own making, whereby he is held in custody".

The judge then permitted Mulligan to return to his home but said the address would not be disclosed.

He was ordered to have no contact with the complainant or anyone aged under 18, and he is banned from entering Erneside Shopping Centre.

Mr Mulligan will appear again at Enniskillen Magistrates' Court on 6 January.