A 27-year-old man, who it was said found himself in a “bouncer sandwich”, was acquitted of two counts of common assault at Fermanagh Magistrates court.

Ryan Ingram, with an address of Edenmore Crescent Tempo, was found not guilty of the assault of two door supervisors at Pat’s Bar in February of this year.

District Judge Michael Ranahan said that there was some discrepancies in the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses, who were all door supervisors at Pats bar, and that “when there is doubt, I must acquit”.

The prosecution contended that Ingram had been “very drunk” and had “lashed out” and hit Mr. John Freeman and that he had also assaulted Mr. Colin Greer.

The defence argued that some of the evidence from the prosecution witnesses was “preposterous” and “ludicrous”.

In his evidence to the court Mr. Freeman claimed that he had been told that the defendant had urinated against an upstairs bar and that was the reason he was being “escorted” from the premises at roughly 1:30am in the morning.

Defending barrister Stephen Mooney asked Mr. Freeman if he remembered who had told him about this incident or who he had asked about this incident and why he had not provided this piece of evidence to police when he made his statement.

The witness replied that he could not remember who had told him or who he had asked and that there “was a lot going on in my head at that time”.

Mr Mooney, in questioning Mr Freeman, said that it was his contention that his client did not lash out and strike Mr. Freeman in the head as had been argued by the prosecution.

The second witness in the case, Mr Greer, told the court that he had seen the defendant at the front door of the pub after he had been escorted from the premises. He said that Ingram was talking to the head doorman (Mr. Freeman) and was becoming “more aggressive” and that “he punched” Mr. Freeman.

Mr Greer claimed that it was at this point that he moved in behind Ingram to restrain him. He said that he told Ingram to let go of the metal bar on the fire door, that Mr Greer alleged the defendant had “wrapped his arm around”.

Mr Greer said that Ingram then “pushed himself backwards and we both fell to the ground”. It was at that point, the court heard, that Mr. Greer suffered an injury, which later transpired to be a dislocated knee.

“I was in agony,” Mr. Greer told the court.

Mr. Mooney, for the defence, put it to the witness that rather than his client pushing backwards that it was in fact the case that Mr. Greer had pulled him back. Mr. Mooney cited the witnesses’ own statement to the police where on two occasions he said that he had “pulled” the defendant “back”.

Mr. Greer asserted in reply that he did not pull Ingram back.

Mr. Greer stated that when he and the defendant were on the ground that the defendant was on top of him and that he threw punches.

In his evidence to the court Mr. Freeman had alleged that while Ingram was on the ground, he had tried to get him off Mr. Greer and that he had been struck in the head by the defendant.

During his cross examination of both witnesses Mr. Mooney told the court that while there was no doubt that a struggle did take place while the three people were on the ground, that it had occurred because his client had effectively been “caught in a bouncer sandwich”.

The last witness for the prosecution, Barry Scott, who was also working as a door supervisor on the night in question, was asked by the defence had he witnessed a struggle between Mr. Greer, Mr Freeman and the accused to which he replied: “yes, with kicks and punches” coming from the defendant.

He was asked did he see any of these punches or kicks connect to which he replied that he had “heard the thuds”.

Mr. Mooney put it to Mr Scott that it was “preposterous” to suggest that he had heard thuds given the time of night and the crowd in the area.

The defendant also took the stand with the prosecution putting it to him that he was “very drunk” on the night in question.

Ingram admitted to being “drunk” but said he was in “complete control of his actions”. The prosecution contended that he had admitted to hitting one of the bouncers in his initial statement to police with the defendant denying this and stating that there had been two questions asked by police and he was answering the first question, which related to him being escorted from the bar by bouncers.

In summing up the Judge stated that he had no inclination that either the three prosecution witnesses or the defendant were attempting to lie to the court. He went on to say that in order to convict he had to be certain beyond doubt. He also stated that he had viewed the CCTV footage, which the prosecution had not relied on for their case and that there was no conclusive evidence from that footage.

He acquitted Ingram of all charges.