The Court of Appeal has dismissed Francis Kelleher’s appeal against four concurrent four-year prison sentences for intimidating his nephew, Niall Kelleher, to discourage him from pursuing legal proceedings.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 29 February 2016, Mr Justice Mahon said the sentences imposed by Cork Circuit Criminal Court were within the sentencing judge’s discretion and involved no error of principle. The court noted they may have been at the upper end of the appropriate range.
Francis Kelleher pleaded guilty on 23 April 2015 to four counts under section 9 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The counts related to conduct on 27 June 2012 at the Spires, Innishannon, and on 6 July, 8 July and 8 January 2013 at Barna, Innishannon. The source gives no year for the January date in that list; it separately describes the count as occurring on 8 January 2013.
He was sentenced on 30 April 2015 to four years on each count, with the terms running concurrently. His appeal argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to his guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, remorse and apology, age and the shame he had brought upon himself. The appeal judgment says the plea came late.
The court described the offences as an attempt to use threats to stop a person from exercising a legal entitlement to bring proceedings. It said the threats were particularly nasty and caused Niall Kelleher great fear for himself and his family over a prolonged period. The judgment said Francis Kelleher used the name of the Continuity IRA to instil fear, and that the victim believed he and his family were in serious danger. Niall Kelleher checked under his car daily for a time and feared unfamiliar cars and people in his neighbourhood.
The judgment also said Francis Kelleher had withdrawn and paid, and was prepared to pay, a substantial amount of money to people to make the threats. It described this as evidence of planning and determination. The court noted that the appellant and victim were closely related, and that the appellant had been a priest and hospital chaplain.
The sentencing judge had considered consecutive terms but imposed concurrent sentences, taking account of remorse, an apology and the unlikelihood of reoffending. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, leaving the four-year concurrent terms in place.