A TRIO of family members arrested in a car full of weaponry were on their way to retaliate against earlier attacks in a violent feud that spilled out on to the streets of Enniskillen, Fermanagh Magistrates Court has heard.

Patrick Crumlish (56), with an address within the vicinity of Main Street, Belcoo, and Martin Christopher Crumlish (26) and 23-year-old Hugh Crumlish, both of Coolcullen Meadow, Enniskillen, all pleaded guilty to three counts relating to the possession of offensive weapons, including two slash hooks, a Samurai sword, a pick-axe handle and knife, on November 9, 2015.

The offences occurred in the context of an ongoing feud between the family of the three co-defendants and members of a family of the same name in the months leading up to this incident, the court heard.

The “bad blood” between the two branches of the family had now ended after “mediation” had taken place between the parties, a lawyer for one of the defendants revealed.

Imposing suspended jail terms on the three men, district judge Peter King observed that it was “chilling” to hear of individuals armed in the manner they were. He reminded the defendants that they lived in the real world, not a video game.

“This is not Grand Theft Auto Enniskillen,” the judge added.

The court had earlier heard that, in the course of the feud, members of the other branch of the family had attacked a house in Coolcullen Meadow on September 9, 2015, before attacking a car on Wellington Road in Enniskillen on the evening of November 9.

Martin and Hugh Crumlish were inside the car, which was temporarily stopped, at around 5.20pm, when three individuals armed with baseball bats and a hammer, got out of a van and started to smash up the vehicle.

The two defendants, along with Patrick Crumlish, were arrested at their home address a short time later on the same day.

Defending counsel, Stephen Mooney, who was representing Martin Crumlish, told the court that his client’s car had been attacked by the same individuals who had attacked the house on September 9.

The barrister said that the attack on the car had taken place less than an hour before he was apprehended.

Mr Mooney revealed that the individuals from the other side had also been charged in connection with the feud, but were all found not guilty after the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) had offered no evidence against them.

The barrister admitted that his client had been “tooling himself up” after what had happened previously when he had been arrested by police calling to his house.

Describing his actions as defensive rather than offensive, Mr Mooney said there had been no retaliatory action in the month preceding this incident.

“Thankfully, he was stopped at home before anything happened,” the barrister said.

In mitigation, Mr Mooney said the “bad blood” between the two sides had now ended and there had been no further incidents since November 2015.

Conceding that it was a very serious offence, the barrister added that it “could’ve gotten more serious”.

Defending counsel, Joe McCann, acting on behalf of Patrick Crumlish, told the court that his client had accepted knowledge of the items and was entitled to full credit after entering guilty pleas.

Mr McCann said that “mediation” had taken place between the two sides and there had been no more manifestations of the feud.

Describing the incident as “out-of-character” for the 56-year-old, the barrister said he may have been reacting to “exceptional circumstances”.

Mr McCann revealed that £1,200 of damage had been caused to a family car that “hasn’t been put right”.

Meanwhile, Heather Phillips, counsel for Hugh Crumlish, told the court that the incident involving the three men had been an “unsophisticated kneejerk reaction” to the previous violent attack on the car.

She said that her client had accepted responsibility and knowledge of the items in the car.

In mitigation, the barrister said her client had only married earlier this summer and was “fearful” of an immediate custodial sentence.

Conceding that he had 13 previous convictions, she argued that he had been maturing since 2014 and was moving away from the cycle of offending.

District judge Mr King observed that he didn’t intend to differentiate between the three men in sentencing.

Warning against members of the public taking the law into their own hands, the judge told the court that vigilantism could not be tolerated and communities could not police themselves.

Taking into account the facts in the case, Mr King said the only appropriate sentence would be a term of imprisonment.

However, he added that he would suspend the sentence because of the guilty pleas entered by the defendants, their “relatively unrelated” previous records and the gap between the offending and their appearance in court.

The judge imposed a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, in respect of each defendant.

He also granted destruction orders for any weapons that were obtained by the police.