The Court of Appeal has dismissed Catherine Callanan’s appeal against her convictions for obtaining services by deception, leaving in place the jury’s verdicts on two counts. The court decided that the evidence raised questions of intent that were properly left for the jury; it did not itself decide those questions.
Callanan had been convicted by a jury at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court on 10 July 2015. She was sentenced on one count to four months’ imprisonment, suspended in full for one year. The second count was taken into consideration. Two other similar counts were withdrawn from the jury by the trial judge.
The first conviction concerned a bouncy castle hired for private use in the housing estate where Callanan lived. It was delivered on 8 September 2012 at a cost of €180. Evidence was that Callanan booked it in the name of the Vocational Education Committee (VEC) and directed that the invoice be sent to the committee. The VEC paid the invoice, and Callanan later repaid it. The Court of Appeal said the jury had to decide whether she intended the VEC to pay without reimbursement.
The second count concerned a VEC minibus driven from Dungarvan to Kart World in County Cork on 27 October 2012, carrying Callanan’s son and his friends. The driver said Callanan told him to record the trip under the School Completion Programme when he asked what group to put on the form used to claim payment from the VEC. The VEC paid him, and Callanan later reimbursed it. The appeal court said the jury could decide whether she had left the driver with the impression that the trip was authorised and would be paid for by the VEC, and whether she intended repayment.
Callanan argued that the service providers had not been induced to provide either service by deception. The Court of Appeal accepted that the service provider’s mind must be affected by the deception, but clarified that the provider need not know the information was deceptive or dishonest. It also said the prosecution did not have to show the provider would have refused the service if given accurate information. The central question was Callanan’s intent that the VEC bear the cost without reimbursement.
The appeal was dismissed in respect of both counts.