IED event in Dublin, Finglas South area, Ireland on Tue 30th April 2024

Man arrested for allegedly carrying pipe bomb asks to be put in 'protective custody'
Sammy Hutch, 48, of Cardiffsbridge Avenue, Finglas, was remanded in custody today.


A DUBLIN MAN arrested for carrying an “improvised explosive device” close to his home believed there was a “viable” threat to his safety, a court has heard.
Sammy Hutch, 48, of Cardiffsbridge Avenue, Finglas, was remanded in custody today.
He begged, via his lawyer, to be put into “protective custody” when he appeared before Judge Gerard Jones at Blanchardstown District Court.
Mr Hutch was arrested in the early hours of Tuesday and detained at a local Garda station before being charged with an offence under section four of the Explosive Substances Act.

He is accused of unlawful possession of a pipe bomb at Cardiffsbridge Avenue on 30 April but has not yet indicated a plea.
Mr Hutch, dressed in a black jacket, white T-shirt and green tracksuit bottoms, did not address the court but clutched his chest and bent over several times as he sat on the defendant’s bench.
Garda Mary Devins told the court that Mr Hutch “made no reply to charge”, and the officer confirmed that she intended to object to bail due to the seriousness of the case.

However, defence counsel Ciaran MacLoughlin told Judge Jones there was no application for bail at this stage.
Judge Jones asked about the background of the case. Garda Devins replied, “It is alleged that an improvised explosive device was found in the accused’s possession in the early hours of the 30th of April.”

Judge Jones remanded him in custody to appear at Cloverhill District Court on Tuesday.
Mr MacLoughlin was granted an order for medical attention to be given to Mr Hutch in prison custody.
Counsel also said, “He has asked me to convey that he would like to be put in some form of protective custody because he believes there is some form of viable threat to his safety.”
Judge Jones held that was a matter for the prison authorities. Legal aid was granted.
Directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions have yet to be conveyed on whether the case will remain in the District Court or go forward to the Circuit Court, which has broader sentencing powers.