The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eimear Carroll’s appeal against the severity of a four-year prison sentence for harassment and two postal communications offences.
Carroll pleaded guilty in February 2024 to one count of harassment and two counts of sending indecent, obscene, grossly offensive or menacing material by post. In July, the sentencing judge imposed four years’ imprisonment, with the final two years suspended for five years subject to conditions. The other two counts were taken into consideration. The judge also made a no-contact order with the injured parties, with Carroll’s consent.
The appeal court said Carroll sent letters weekly or fortnightly over about two years to a man identified as A and a woman identified as B, who are married. The letters went to them and to their relatives, friends, neighbours and workplaces. They included sexually explicit images and false allegations of serious misconduct by B. Those allegations prompted two HIQA inquiries into the medical facility where B worked; the allegations were found to be baseless.
The court described the impact on A and B as profound. They left their jobs and moved to another part of Ireland. The sentencing judge also considered evidence that the letters damaged friendships and caused B distress and fear. The appeal judgment said personal details in the correspondence made the couple suspect people in their social circle.
Carroll argued that the six-year headline sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge gave too little weight to her guilty plea, clean record, mental health, low assessed risk of reoffending, remorse, the time since the letters stopped and a relative’s serious illness. Her counsel also argued that the conduct was limited to letters and was not threatening. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offending was at the upper end of the scale.
The Court of Appeal accepted the sentencing judge’s assessment of the aggravating factors, including the campaign’s planning, duration, reach and effect. It rejected the argument that the absence of face-to-face contact or social media made the conduct less serious. It found that the guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, apology and low risk of reoffending had been considered in reducing the six-year headline sentence to four years. The relative’s illness had also been treated as mitigation, though the appeal court said it did not justify reducing the appropriate headline sentence.
The appeal court found no error of principle in the sentence. Carroll did not ultimately challenge the suspension of two years, and the appeal was dismissed.