Three Men Admit Planning an Attack on a Mosque in Galway

Table of Contents

• You might want to know
• Main Topic
• Key Insights Table
• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• How did the three men plan to attack the Maryam Mosque in Galway?
• What did the court hear about the defendants’ paths into the group and their stated remorse?

Main Topic

Three men have pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in terrorist activity by planning to damage a mosque in Galway. One of them, Garrett Pollock, is from County Down. The other defendants are Darren Gorman and Karolis Peckauskas. Their guilty pleas concern an alleged plot against the Maryam Mosque on Monivea Road, and the Special Criminal Court in Dublin has heard details of the preparations and the investigation.

Pollock, 36, is from Kilhorne Greene in Annalong. Gorman, 34, is from O’Moore Place in Portlaoise, while Peckauskas, 39, is from Newfoundwell Road in Drogheda. The court heard that the three men had made advanced plans to blow up the mosque. The intended period for the attack was between 4 and 5 November 2025. They were arrested as those plans were being investigated.

Pollock also pleaded guilty to possessing an explosive substance. The material was found in four glass jars concealed in a drawer in his van on 4 November. This additional plea relates specifically to the substance and its discovery, while the wider case concerns the alleged plan to attack the mosque. The court heard that the men had considered using improvised incendiary devices, including pipe bombs and “Molotov cocktails.”

The men were associated with a group calling itself the Irish Defence Army. Det Insp Alan McDevitt described it to the court as a violent, right-wing extremist group. He said it was a splinter of the online Irish Citizens Army. According to McDevitt, members communicated through Signal, a messaging app. RTÉ reported his evidence about the group and its links to the defendants.

McDevitt told the court that gardaí, the Irish police, did not know when the attack was due to take place. The uncertainty about timing did not mean that investigators had found no preparations: the court heard that the men had discussed possible methods and had made advanced plans. The devices described in evidence were improvised incendiary weapons, rather than items presented as a completed attack. The distinction matters when recounting the case: the reported proceedings concern guilty pleas to attempting terrorist activity and, in Pollock’s case, a separate explosives-possession offence.

Evidence also included a video recorded on Pollock’s phone in Gorman’s kitchen in Portlaoise. The three men had filmed footage in which they claimed responsibility for the planned attack. It showed four masked men wearing tactical clothing and standing in front of the Irish flag. In the recording, they said they wished “to take responsibility for destruction of first mosque introduced into our great country in Galway.” The court heard this statement as part of the material relating to the alleged plot.

Pollock has also sent the court a written letter expressing remorse and shame for his actions. At a hearing on Friday, the court heard that he had become “radicalised” online after beginning to misuse alcohol and cocaine. Pollock worked as a gym instructor and consumed content presenting immigrants as purported threats to the community. That content was described in court as “emotive, ill-informed and AI-generated.”

The account presented to the court described how Pollock’s involvement developed. After making contact with a group, he was invited into smaller groups. He found a sense of belonging and, according to the evidence, became radicalised very quickly. He wanted to demonstrate his commitment to the people he had encountered. A doctor who assessed Pollock said his actions took place in the context of emotional dysfunction, low self-esteem, and isolation. These descriptions were presented as part of the assessment of his circumstances; they do not change the nature of the offences to which he pleaded guilty.

Gorman’s defence counsel also addressed his personal circumstances. The court was told that his psychological report highlighted extremes of submissiveness and vulnerability. Counsel said that he was a drug user and addict and had certain mental health issues. They further emphasized that he had no history of violence, hatred, or terrorism. These points were made by the defence in the context of the case and the material to be considered at sentencing.

The proceedings have therefore included both an account of the alleged operational preparations and information about the defendants’ backgrounds. The evidence described communication within extremist groups, the planned use of incendiary devices, a recorded video, and the discovery of explosive material in Pollock’s van. Separately, the court heard submissions about Pollock’s remorse and psychological state, as well as the defence account of Gorman’s vulnerabilities and personal history. Peckauskas is identified as one of the three men who pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in terrorist activity.

The three men are due to be sentenced on 30 October 2026. Until sentencing, the court’s findings and the material placed before it provide the basis for understanding the case, while the reported psychological and personal details remain relevant context rather than a replacement for the guilty pleas.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

The next formal stage is sentencing on 30 October 2026. The court will consider the offences and the information presented about the defendants, including the circumstances described by medical and psychological assessments and the defence submissions. The case also highlights how online extremist content and group dynamics featured in the evidence. Any broader conclusions should remain grounded in what the court heard, while recognizing that the sentences and judicial assessment are still to come.