Director of Public Prosecutions v Hannan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Woulfe
• Judgment Date: 30 July 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IECA 203
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record No. 2022/208

Between

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Eoin Hannan

Appellant

[2024] IECA 203

Woulfe J.

McCarthy J.

Burns J.

Court of Appeal Record No. 2022/208

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Sentencing – Harassment – Severity of sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against sentence – Whether sentence was unduly severe

Facts: The appellant, Mr Hannan, was convicted by a jury for an offence of harassment contrary to s. 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. In July, 2022, he pleaded guilty to two further counts of harassment on a second Bill. That offending was committed while on bail in respect of the earlier Bill. The appellant was sentenced on the 7th November, 2022, to a term of imprisonment of three years in respect of the first Bill, and one year in respect of each of the two counts on the second Bill, to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence imposed on the first Bill. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the grounds that the offences committed were non-violent in nature, that the psychiatric report submitted to the sentencing court contained a damaging falsehood, and that no regard was had to the fact that the appellant was afflicted with bi-polar affective disorder.

Held by the Court that while the offending did not involve the use of physical violence, the offending concerned a serious and persistent pattern of harassment, and had a significant impact on its victims. In relation to Bill 399/21, the Court was of the view that the headline sentence of four years nominated was within the range of the headline sentence available to the sentencing judge, given the serious offending involved. The Court was satisfied that the sentencing judge took into account all of the relevant mitigating factors in imposing an effective sentence of three years on Bill 399/21. The Court noted that the sentencing judge expressly stated that she had had regard to the psychiatric report, and the mental health difficulties contained therein; she also expressly stated that the Court was cognisant of the fact of the appellant’s mental health difficulties as outlined by Dr O’Neill. The Court found that the sentencing judge did take account of the fact that the appellant was afflicted with bi-polar affective disorder, as part of her consideration of mitigating circumstances. In relation to Bill 1403/21, the Court took the view that there was no error of principle by the sentencing judge in nominating a headline sentence of three years, in circumstances where those offences were committed while the appellant was on bail in respect of Bill 399/21, circumstances which the sentencing judge was entitled to treat as a significant aggravating factor. The Court was satisfied that it was open to her to arrive at the overall sentence of four years between Bill 399/21 and Bill 1403/21. The Court noted that while the sentencing judge considered Dr O’Neill’s report, she did not expressly consider the reference to a barring order as a factor in this case, and certainly not as an aggravating factor. In the circumstances, the Court found that there was nothing to indicate that she relied in any way upon that reference to a barring order, and in the circumstances it could not uphold the ground of appeal that the psychiatric report submitted to the sentencing court contained a damaging falsehood.

The Court dismissed the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Woulfe on the 30 ^th day of July, 2024

Introduction

1 . This is an appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant. He was convicted by a jury for an offence of harassment contrary to s. 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”). In July, 2022 he pleaded guilty to two further counts of harassment on a second Bill. This offending was committed while on bail in respect of the earlier Bill.

2 . The appellant was sentenced on the 7 ^th November, 2022, to a term of imprisonment of three years in respect of the first Bill, and one year in respect of each of the two counts on the second Bill, to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence imposed on the first Bill.

3 . The appellant appealed the sentences imposed on the grounds that the offences committed were non-violent in nature, that the psychiatric report submitted to the sentencing Court contained a damaging falsehood, and that no regard was had to the fact that the appellant is afflicted with bi-polar affective disorder.

Background

4 . It may be useful to outline the events that led to the sentence. The victims in this case are a Ms Ciara Hassett, and her father Mr Paddy Hassett. It appears that Ms Hassett is the sister of a former housemate of the appellant, whom the appellant had believed had represented him in court back in 2013, but he later learned he was mistaken as to her identity.

5 . The appellant began corresponding with Ms Hassett in 2016 and sent flowers to her. She replied in that instance by way of text message thanking him for the flowers. This was the only communication she ever made with the appellant. Following further communication with Ms Hassett, the appellant was warned by Garda Emmet Roche in July, 2017 that he had received a complaint from the Hassett family regarding his behaviour. Garda Roche interviewed the appellant voluntarily and warned him that the communications were unwelcome, and that consequences would arise if it were to continue.

6 . In April, 2018, the appellant called to Ms Hassett's family home in County Clare, where her father lived alone. In February, 2019, Garda Mark Walsh contacted the appellant following a further complaint from the Hassett family and warned him in the same manner as before. After a lull in contact, the appellant wrote to Ms Hassett by letter dated the 14 ^th October, 2019.

7 . The appellant began sending correspondence to Ms Hassett's workplace, and arrangements were subsequently made for any such correspondence to be intercepted, although she was informed of same. All of the correspondence received at Ms Hassett's workplace was provided to the Gardaí, and was provided to the sentencing Court. Ms Hassett also received correspondence from the appellant to her family home, and this was also provided to the sentencing Court.

8 . In August, 2020 the security guard at Ms Hassett's workplace informed her that the appellant had called to her workplace on two separate occasions, entering the building on the first occasion. On the second occasion, he was refused entry but left a package outside the doorway addressed to Ms Hassett.

9 . Throughout the course of the correspondence, as with earlier communications, the appellant professed his affection for Ms Hassett. All of this made her upset, anxious and very unsettled. In a letter to Ms Hassett dated 6 ^th August, 2020, the appellant stated “I can kill anything but time”, and this instilled fear and upset in Ms Hassett. Another letter received at the family home on the 11 ^th August, 2020 referenced her family members, and she described being very stressed and very upset by these letters.

10 . On the 25 ^th August, 2020, Garda Barry arrested the appellant on suspicion of harassment, and he was detained for the purpose of investigation. He subsequently made admissions to the conduct alleged, but did not admit that it amounted to the offence alleged. He described his actions as trying to “woo” Ms Hassett, and described meeting her at her brother's office on the 6 ^th February, 2013. It was ultimately established at trial, however, that the appellant had in fact never met Ms Hassett before the trial. The appellant expressed outrage at the fact that Ms Hassett had not told him to stop contacting her without involving what he described as “ the department of criminal justice”.

11 . The appellant was subsequently charged with harassment and then released on bail, one condition of which was that he not have any contact with Ms Hassett. In an attempt to circumvent the bail conditions, the appellant sent a letter to Ms Hassett's father dated the 19 ^th January, 2021. Following this, Mr Hassett received a phone call from the appellant in which he asked for Ms Hassett's phone number. Mr Hassett refused, and told the appellant not to contact him again. As Mr Hassett was aware of the appellant's previous conduct towards his daughter, he was concerned and worried as a result of these communications. He told Ms Hassett, who was at the time living with him, about the phone call and the letter, and immediately after discovered that an attempt had been made by the appellant to call his phone number again, and that the appellant had left a voicemail once again asking for Ms Hassett's number.

12 . On the 3 ^rd March, 2021, the appellant was arrested for harassment, detained and interviewed. He again made admissions as to the conduct alleged, but expressed a belief that Ms Hassett had forgiven him. He then suggested he would stop contacting the Hassett family.

13 . On the 2 ^nd December, 2021, Ms Hassett again received a letter from the appellant which caused huge worry to her. She described real worry about the stress this unwanted contact was causing her eighty-two year old father, and the fact that it had been going on for five years without knowing when it would end was very stressful.

14 . On the 15 ^th June, 2022, the appellant was again arrested, detained and interviewed. When asked why he had sent the December, 2021 letter, he stated that having to wait until October, 2023 for a trial would be grossly unfair, and that sending the letter...