At Coleraine Magistrates’ Court today, the charges against Detective Chief Inspector Siobhan Ennis and her son, Ryan Ennis, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the alleged theft of a cockapoo puppy named Stella.
At a previous contest hearing, prosecution had alleged that DCI Ennis and her son unlawfully took Stella from Mandy Graham, who claimed that the puppy was an unconditional gift from Ennis. However, the defense maintained that the conflict arose from a breakdown in the friendship between Graham and DCI Ennis, particularly following the latter’s new romantic involvement.
Testimony from Graham indicated that her relationship with Ennis had included romantic elements. The prosecution presented evidence of communications suggesting that Graham believed she had received Stella as a gift, while the defense argued that concerns about the puppy’s welfare fueled the dispute.
As the case proceeded into the second day of the contest (Friday August 29), new inquiries about time stamped pictures on Grahams phone of Stella led to Graham volunteering messages exchanged with Ryan Ennis. These messages were screenshoted by police, and presented in court, suggested that Ryan Ennis believed he had the right to reclaim Stella if Graham could not provide adequate care for the puppy.
The prosecution argued that this new evidence undermined their original claims, indicating that the gift aspect of the case was not as clear-cut as initially thought. The text message highlighted by the defense detailed Ryan’s position on Stella’s care, stating: “Hi Mandy, Stella is with me in Magherafelt. We made it very clear that if at any stage you were not able to or willing to provide her with the kind of care I wanted, that she would come back to me. We talked about it a few times. By choosing to keep her out of mums life you’re putting her at risk of Mo and I told you I would not allow that. I’m sorry it has come to this. I was never paid for Stella and the agreement was very clear. I’m taking her back and hope you understand. This is for her own good.”
In light of this evidence, the prosecution conceded that the burden of proof was no longer met, leading to the decision to offer no further evidence against the defendants.
District Judge Peter King, upon reviewing the circumstances and the presented evidence or lack off, dismissed the case, stating, “Every complaint on each summons is marked dismissed on a no evidence basis.”
In the aftermath of the dismissal of the case against Detective Chief Inspector Siobhan Ennis and her son, Ryan Ennis, their defense team addressed the court regarding their intention to file a cost application. The defence barrister emphasised the exceptional nature of this case, stating that it was “highly exceptional” and should never have been prosecuted in the first place. They argued that had Graham’s phone been seized by the police initially, the relevant text messages would have been uncovered sooner, potentially altering the course of the case.
The court also heard previous claims challenged regarding Mandy Graham’s mother, Mo. Contrary to earlier assertions that Mo posed no danger, and was a “frail 83-year-old woman”, an examination of Graham’s messages painted a different picture, with Graham referring to her mother in derogatory terms such as “F* face” and “C*,” and suggesting that she was “in the area with a whip.” This evidence raised questions about Graham’s character and the nature of her relationship with her mother.
Following the dismissal, DCI Ennis’s defence barrister criticised the police investigation, highlighting that Ryan Ennis had first informed the police about the existence of the text messages back in November 2022. It was pointed out that these messages were not obtained until August 23, 2025, which the defense labeled as an “utter failure of a police investigation.”
In concluding the proceedings, Judge King requested that the defense submit their written application for costs by September 12, with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) expected to respond by September 26. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that the message regarding the innocence of the two defendants is clearly communicated, stating, “The important thing is to ensure the message goes out about the innocence of the two defendants today.”