The Supreme Court has dismissed Eve Doherty’s appeal against her conviction for harassment, ruling that a campaign of emails and leaflets sent to other people could count as communication with the victim when it was intended to reach her.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on July 24, 2020, upheld the conviction and the Court of Appeal’s order. Doherty’s sentence was not under appeal. She had received a three-year prison sentence, with the Court of Appeal suspending the balance of the 20 months she had already served.
The jury convicted Doherty of one harassment count and acquitted her of two counts alleging false statements. The prosecution case concerned communications made between September 2011 and March 2013. They included one letter sent directly to the victim, leaflets placed in the neighbourhood, and emails sent anonymously to multiple recipients, including people in public life. The jury’s verdict established Doherty’s authorship of the communications underlying the conviction.
The victim told the trial that the messages upset and worried her, made her anxious and affected her sleep and confidence. She said she became nervous because she did not know who was behind them and was concerned for her child.
Doherty argued that communications to third parties were not “communicating with” the victim under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation. It held that communication need not be addressed directly to the victim: the question was whether information was made common to her through the campaign, which the jury could find was intended to reach her and cause alarm, distress or harm.
The court distinguished that conclusion from the separate question of “besetting”. Justice Charleton considered the victim beset by persistent communications. However, the majority held that besetting requires some physical presence or physical actions, even if carried out at a distance. The conviction was upheld on communication grounds, so the disagreement over besetting did not affect the result.
The court unanimously dismissed the appeal, affirming the Circuit Criminal Court order and upholding the Court of Appeal order.