The Court of Appeal has quashed a 30-year no-contact condition attached to a suspended prison term for a man convicted of assault causing harm against his former partner, ruling that it was disproportionate and excessive. The court resentenced him, limiting the contact and stay-away conditions to the three-year period during which the final year of his sentence is suspended.
The judgment, delivered on 2 June 2020, concerned an appeal against sentence, not the conviction. A jury had found the appellant guilty of assault causing harm and acquitted him of charges of threatening to kill or cause serious injury and false imprisonment. The appellant did not challenge the four-year prison term itself; his appeal focused on the conditions affecting contact with the injured party, identified as N.C., with whom he has four children.
The original sentence suspended the final year for three years, subject to a €150 bond and conditions that he stay away from N.C. and not contact her, directly or indirectly, for 30 years. It also barred him from property where she lived or might live. The sentencing judge had referred to N.C.’s anxiety about his release and their future arrangements for the children, saying those arrangements could be addressed in another forum.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing judge likely imposed the condition to address the concerns raised in N.C.’s victim impact statement. But it found the 30-year restriction too far-reaching in duration and effect, and its terms too strict and inflexible. The court said the condition amounted to secondary punishment and was disproportionate and arbitrary. It also found that it excessively affected the appellant’s rights concerning association with his children and family life.
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence imposed below. It then reimposed four years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended for three years from the appellant’s release. The suspension is conditional on a €150 bond to keep the peace and be of good behaviour during those three years.
During that same period, the appellant must stay away from N.C. and must not contact her, or cause anyone else to contact her, unless she invites it. An exception permits a solicitor instructed for the appellant to contact her in writing about the children’s welfare. He must also stay away from any property where N.C. lives or may live. The court further ordered probation supervision and compliance with the service’s requirements, including any advised courses or programmes addressing domestic violence propensity and anger management. It said those conditions were necessary and proportionate.