The Court of Appeal has dismissed five sentence challenges arising from convictions for membership of, or providing assistance to, an unlawful organisation. The decisions leave the sentences imposed by the Special Criminal Court unchanged.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 14 February 2020, concerned appeals by Kevin Hannaway, Eva Shannon and Sean Hannaway against the severity of their sentences, and applications by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to review the sentences of David Nooney and Edward O’Brien as unduly lenient.
All five were convicted after a 50-day trial on 29 June 2018. Hannaway and Shannon were convicted of providing assistance to an unlawful organisation; Sean Hannaway, Nooney and O’Brien were convicted of membership. Their conviction appeals had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 6 February 2020. The present judgment dealt only with sentence.
The court dismissed the DPP’s applications concerning Nooney and O’Brien. Nooney’s sentence was three years and nine months, following a five-year headline sentence. The court said his 25 per cent reduction, reflecting factors including the absence of relevant previous convictions and chronic back problems, was within the sentencing court’s reasonable margin.
O’Brien received 16 months after a three-year headline sentence. The Court of Appeal described the 56 per cent reduction as “very generous” but found it had not exceeded the sentencing court’s discretion. It said the sentence’s structure, rather than partial suspension, did not by itself justify intervention.
The court also dismissed the severity appeals. Sean Hannaway had received five years and six months from a seven-year headline sentence; Shannon received four years from five and a half years; and Kevin Hannaway received three years and nine months from a six-year headline sentence.
The appeal court upheld the Special Criminal Court’s assessment that the offending involved planned, coordinated activity connected with an IRA inquiry, rather than passive support or membership. It said the sentencing court was entitled to assess the overall activity while distinguishing the accused’s culpability.
In Kevin Hannaway’s case, the court considered his age, health conditions and post-traumatic stress disorder, including a medical report describing serious concerns about his prison conditions. It said prison management and care were matters for the Prison Service, and that no evidence had been presented that the service could not accommodate his situation. The court found no basis for a wholly suspended sentence or a greater reduction.
The Court of Appeal therefore refused all five sentence challenges. It did not resentence any of the accused.