The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence by a man convicted of three counts of threatening to kill or cause serious harm. He remains subject to concurrent sentences of two and a half years’ imprisonment.
The court, in a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Kennedy on 27 January 2020, found no error in the trial judge’s directions to the jury or in refusing to withdraw the case. It also rejected the sentence appeal.
The charges arose from events at a sublet property where the appellant and the injured party, Mr Olusola, were residents. The judgment said that on 20 October 2017, while Mr Olusola was cleaning in a corridor, the appellant shouted racial abuse at him. Mr Olusola later left the house. He said that when he returned on 24 October, the appellant verbally abused him while holding a stick and later approached his car with a stick, saying: “You’re going to be dead. You’re going to be dead. I’ll make sure I kill you.”
The appellant denied making the threats. A jury convicted him on three counts under section 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. The trial judge directed an acquittal on a criminal-damage count. The judgment also records that assault and criminal-damage counts were taken into consideration at sentencing.
On conviction, the appellant argued that the jury had not been properly directed on the intention required for the offences and that the trial judge should have withdrawn the case because of inconsistencies in Mr Olusola’s evidence. The prosecution disputed both grounds. The Court of Appeal said the trial judge had clearly explained that the prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt both that the threats were made and that the appellant intended Mr Olusola to believe they would be carried out. It said the jury’s questions concerned the alleged words and statements to Gardaí, rather than intention.
The court held that the inconsistencies in Mr Olusola’s testimony were matters for the jury to assess. It dismissed both conviction grounds.
On sentence, the trial judge had set a three-year headline term on each threat count, reduced to two and a half years after considering mitigation, including the appellant’s mental-health difficulties. The terms were concurrent. The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge had considered the relevant reports and mitigation and had made no error of principle. It dismissed the sentence appeal.