A GROUP of males accused of setting fire to a caravan in Irvinestown allegedly shouted “Up the Ra! We run this town, no one’s going to tell us what to do” as they left the scene, Fermanagh Magistrates Court has heard.

During a bail application for Michael James Maughan, one of the co-accused, a police officer claimed that local people had been left “terrified” after the alleged “drunken rampage” through Irvinestown on January 13, 2018.

Maughan (27), of Brownhill Meadows, Irvinestown, who was once again refused bail and remains in custody on remand, is facing a total of 11 charges.

He is charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on Sean Millar and Brian Cassidy, as well as breaking into a property at Castle Street, Irvinestown and stealing a mobile phone, cash and jewellery to the value of £400 belonging to the two alleged victims.

The defendant is also accused of possessing a machete and attempting to damage or destroy windows belonging to Roy Maughan.

He is further charged with unlawfully assaulting Roy Maughan, making threats to kill him and damaging tyres belonging to him.

Meanwhile, the defendant is also facing a charge of damaging or destroying by fire a caravan belonging to Tommy Burns.

He appeared before Fermanagh Magistrates Court via videolink from Maghaberry prison for his latest bail application, which was strongly opposed by the PSNI.

Outlining the background to the alleged incidents, the police officer said that, in the early hours of January 13, Sean Millar and Brian Cassidy reported that they had been assaulted by Maughan and a co-accused.

Officers noted that both men had sustained swelling to their faces, the court heard.

Sean Millar further alleged that the two defendants had stolen a mobile phone, sovereign gold ring and £100 in cash.

The policewoman told the court that, in the week following the alleged incident, one of the injured parties had been approached by an associate of the defendant.

He alleged that this person had told him that the case “wouldn’t get as far as court” and threatened him.

The police officer then told the court that, around four hours after the initial alleged incidents on January 13, a 999 call was received from Roy Maughan, who said that Michael Maughan and a co-accused had called to his house “looking in for drinking”, but he had refused entry.

He alleged that Michael Maughan had pulled a machete out of his trousers and threatened him.

Mr. Maughan further alleged that the weapon was used to burst the tyres on his van.

Meanwhile, at 7am, Mr. Maughan observed that his neighbour’s caravan was on fire.

He claimed that he saw three males walking away from the scene.

Video footage of this alleged incident was captured on a mobile phone, the court heard.

The policewoman told the court that, as the three males left the scene, they were heard to shout: “Up the Ra! We run this town, no one’s going to tell us what to do.”

Strongly opposing the bail application, the police officer said that there was a risk of further offences being committed and also interference with witnesses.

She alleged that another injured party in the case had been offered “cash and a bag of weed”.

The policewoman also raised concerns about the bail address proffered by the defence.

She said that the property on the Tummery Road had a Trillick postcode, but was actually only 1.3 miles outside Irvinestown.

The officer said that, as all the injured parties lived in Irvinestown, it was not a suitable address due to the close proximity to the town.

However, during cross-examination by defence solicitor, Tommy Owens, the policewoman agreed that there had been no attempt to mislead the Public Prosecution Service over the address.

Applying for bail, Mr. Owens stressed that his client, who has been in custody for the equivalent of an eight-month jail sentence, had always maintained his innocence.

The policewoman confirmed that, during interview, Maughan had denied being with the other co-accused and denied involvement in any offences.

She also confirmed that there was no forensic evidence linking the defendant to either the arson or the thefts.

When she told the court that the blood of the injured parties had been found on his clothes, the solicitor replied: “That simply proves he was there.”

It also emerged that the defendant had volunteered to take part in an identity procedure in connection with the arson charge, but the alleged injured party did not go to the viewing. District judge, Michael Ranaghan, observed that he did not find the defendant to be a suitable candidate for bail and refused the application.

Mr. Ranaghan then adjourned the case until Wednesday, June 6 for a further review.