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

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

It was open to the jury, on the evidence and the instructions given, to conclude that the conduct amounted to communication within s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed. The majority view is that 'besetting' in s.10 requires physical acts by the accused that have the results described in the statute, but the term is not as narrowly confined as in the 1875 Act context.

Citation
[2020] IESC 45
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 on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld
Legal Topics
Harassment, Statutory Interpretation, Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, Besetting
Criminal Law Harassment Statutory Interpretation Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 Besetting

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 3 Authorities cited 2 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 on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct amounted to 'communication' or 'besetting' under s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of 'besetting' in the context of s.10

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury, on the evidence and the instructions given, to conclude that the conduct amounted to communication within s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The appeal against conviction was therefore dismissed. The majority view is that 'besetting' in s.10 requires physical acts by the accused that have the results described in the statute, but the term is not as narrowly confined as in the 1875 Act context.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld