Director of Public Prosecutions v Doherty (Approved) [2020] IESC 45_2 (24 July 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Doherty (Approved) [2020] IESC 45_2 (24 July 2020)

The appeal was dismissed because the accused's actions—sending letters, leaflets, and emails—constituted 'communications' with the victim under s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, and the jury was properly instructed that a verdict could be reached on this basis. The Court found that the statutory term 'besetting' requires physical presence and should not be interpreted in a purely figurative sense, but this was obiter as the conviction was upheld on the basis of 'communication'.

Citation
[2020] IESC 45_2
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Eve Doherty
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Harassment, Statutory Interpretation, Meaning of 'besetting', Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997
Criminal Law Harassment Statutory Interpretation Meaning of 'besetting' Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Eve Doherty

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actions of the accused constituted 'harassment' under s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the term 'besetting' in the context of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the accused's actions—sending letters, leaflets, and emails—constituted 'communications' with the victim under s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, and the jury was properly instructed that a verdict could be reached on this basis. The Court found that the statutory term 'besetting' requires physical presence and should not be interpreted in a purely figurative sense, but this was obiter as the conviction was upheld on the basis of 'communication'.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed