The Court of Appeal has left in place a three-year prison sentence for former Garda Eve Doherty but ordered that its unserved portion be suspended, after finding the original sentence contained an error in principle.
The court said on 2 July 2019 that the Circuit Court should have considered suspending part of the sentence. It had sentenced Doherty to three years in prison for harassment, backdated to 27 October 2017. At the appeal hearing, she had spent 20 months in custody.
The appeal court had already dismissed her appeal against conviction in a judgment delivered on 31 May 2019. The later judgment addressed the appeal against the severity of her sentence.
Doherty’s appeal argued that the Circuit Court’s four-year headline sentence was too high and that it gave too little credit for mitigation. The sentencing judge had cited her lack of previous convictions, education and Garda career, psychological difficulties, character references, stable relationship and low risk of reoffending. The judge also considered that prison would be particularly difficult for a serving Garda and that there had been no repeat offending since Doherty’s arrest.
The appeal court said the four-year starting point was somewhat higher than it would have selected. It accepted that significant mitigating factors included Doherty’s status as a first-time offender of mature years, her record of public service and the particular difficulty of imprisonment for her. But it also stressed the seriousness of conduct by a senior Garda and noted the absence of a guilty plea, remorse or apology. It said those factors made a significant custodial sentence inevitable.
The prosecution had opposed the claim that the offending was less serious than the harassment in DPP v Sean Carraher (No. 2), pointing to the duration and sustained nature of the campaign, the routes used and the involvement of the complainant’s son. The appeal court described both offences as mid-range, perhaps upper mid-range, and noted that Carraher had tried to remove offending material from the internet.
The court said it would leave the three-year sentence in place but suspend the unserved portion. It had not yet set the suspension terms: it said it would hear counsel and was anxious that conditions prevent direct or indirect contact with the injured party and communications to third parties about that person.