Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against sentence for harassment and sending indecent articles.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Approved

No Redaction Needed

Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 182

Record Number: CCAOT0248/2024

Bill Number: TYDP0059/2021

Edwards J. Burns J. O’Moore J.

BETWEEN/

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

-AND-

EIMEAR CARROLL

APPELLANT

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Brian O’Moore on the 6th day of February, 2025.

1. On the 28th of February 2024 the appellant, Ms. Carroll, pleaded guilty to one count of harassment contrary to s. 10(1) and (6) of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 and two counts of sending by post an article or thing which is indecent, obscene, grossly offensive or menacing contrary to s. 55(1)(b) of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act, 2011 on a full facts basis. On the 25th of July 2024 the sentencing judge sitting in Clonmel Circuit Criminal Court sentenced Ms. Carroll as follows: -

• Count Number 1 – Four years imprisonment with the final two years suspended for a period of five years subject to conditions.

• Count Number 2 and Count Number 22 – Marked taken into consideration.

2. The court also made an order under s. 10(3) of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 that Ms. Carroll not have contact with the named injured parties.

3. The sentencing judge fixed a headline sentence of six years, reducing this to four years imprisonment because of specific mitigating factors.

4. Ms. Carroll has appealed the severity of this sentence.

Background

5. The sentencing judge had available to her a Psychologist’s Report, a Probation Officer’s Report, and oral evidence. She also had a Victim Impact Statement from one of the injured parties, and a book of correspondence constituting a sample of the communications sent by Ms. Carroll which gave rise to these charges.

6. The injured parties were a male (“A”) and a female (“B”). A and B are now married. Ms. Carroll had befriended A in 2010 and in 2012 went on a number of dates with him. Ms. Carroll’s 30th birthday was in 2012. On the day of her birthday Ms. Carroll was disappointed as A did not contact her during the day, even to wish her a happy birthday. In the early hours of the following morning, Ms. Carroll states that she received a text message from A stating that their relationship was not going to work because of his professional commitments and the geographical distance between them.

7. Some years later, Ms. Carroll became aware that A was in a serious relationship with

B. Ms. Carroll then began to send letters slandering B, accompanied with photographs of male genitalia afflicted by sexually transmitted diseases. This correspondence was sent on a weekly basis over a two-year period to A and B, to their workplaces, to their neighbours, to their family, to their friends and acquaintances.

8. The sample correspondence presented to the sentencing judge verges from vulgar abuse to vicious character assassination. It includes a range of repulsive photographs which include the face and genitalia of men afflicted by gonorrhoea, herpes, syphilis, genital warts, and scabies (among other diseases). Chillingly, the correspondence suggests that the writer knows a great deal about both A and B, thereby giving the impression that these letters are sent by somebody who knows them well and may indeed be a friend of theirs. In addition to correspondence to the wide range of people already mentioned, correspondence was sent to a senior executive in HIQA (Ms. Susan Cliff). This correspondence accused B, who worked in a medical facility, of various serious abuse and breaches of trust. As a result, not one but two HIQA inquiries were launched into the medical facility at which B worked. Ultimately, all allegations of physical abuse, verbal abuse, and theft were found to be baseless.

9. The effect on A and B was devastating. A’s Victim Impact Statement included the following: - “Two years into receiving these nasty letters every week, myself and [B] left our jobs at the time, left my house which I had bought ten years prior, as neither of us felt safe in the area, the fear of unknown was crippling. We received the first letters in 2015 and initially, we felt, due to the writing style, that these letters were being sent by an unstable man. This was terrifying for both myself and [B], as we were paranoid of everyone. The details of the letters suggests that it was someone we knew, our social circle, so we both became quite self-isolated.

We received a letter almost every Tuesday and they spiralled into a very dark and unsettling weekly experience, the nature of these letters were both deleterious to our characters and sexually inappropriate in their nature. The fact they were sent weekly to my elderly parents is deeply upsetting. The compounding effects of this frequency wore on both myself and [B] deeply, we lost close friendships, we had friends become incredibly embittered towards us, due to also receiving weekly letters. [B] received letters to her place of work, her college and regards to her appearance, this had a profound effect on both her confidence and exuberance for life. I remember ringing her whilst I was on night duty and she told me, I am just turning in, I have all the doors locked and I have checked under the bed. This fills me personally with shame that I, in some incredibly small part, have inflicted this on my wife.”

10. A then went on to describe a particular incident. B’s first cousin died on a Friday evening. B was “distraught” but A encouraged her to go to work the following day given her close friendship with her workmates. The following Tuesday a letter was received stating: - “Your money hungry [c…] of a girlfriend was walking into work and her cousin not cold in the ground”.

11. As A said in his Victim Impact Statement, both A and B moved to live in a different part of Ireland as a direct result of the letters.

12. B gave oral evidence to the sentencing judge. It was very much along the lines of the Victim Impact Statement of A. Her evidence included the following: -

(1) The impact of Ms. Carroll’s activities persists. B is cautious of everyone: “If a car pulls outside my home I am still questioning is it you, could this start all over again?”

(2) B did not even tell her family about the correspondence as “the pictures, the details were so vulgar and degrading, and the messages were so personal and defaming of my character, I couldn’t possibly share them with any more people.” B stated to the trial judge that she still cried daily, thinking about all the people who were receiving the letters, who would receive the next ones, and what would the next letter say.

(3) To date, B emphasised the fact that her friends who received the letters to some extent blamed them for all of this: “Those who received the letters were angry and rightly so, no one should be exposed to the level of vulgarity on a typical Tuesday in their own home, however they weren’t angry with [Ms. Carroll], they were angry with me they were angry with [A].”

(4) B referred to the HIQA investigation, and the fact that she was summoned to numerous meetings “as they felt I was a risk to vulnerable families and service users that I was working with.”

(5) Understandably, given the level of knowledge about A and B contained in the letters, B “was second guessing everyone and everything and spent time trying to catch people out to see who it was. [B] cried every day, was stressed, overwhelmed, and became paranoid with those around [her].”

(6) For their wedding day, A and B had to inform the Gardaí that they were worried Ms. Carroll would turn up and she spent the day “looking over my shoulder wondering if you were going to do anything to hurt me.”

13. The sentencing judge also heard evidence from the investigating Guard. In January and February of 2017 the Gardaí received letters sent by Ms. Carroll. On the envelopes containing these letters were stamps with serial numbers printed on each stamp. It was therefore possible to locate the post office where the stamps had been purchased. CCTV footage showed Ms. Carroll entering the post office and carrying out the transaction. Importantly, for the purpose of this appeal, Ms. Carroll “took out a pair of gloves and put them on, prior to handling the stamps purchased. After she placed the stamps in her bag, she removed the gloves and left the post office.”

14. For one of the transactions Ms. Carroll had used a payment card. The Gardaí then obtained a search warrant for the relevant bank and, as a result of this, was able to identify Ms. Carroll as the person carrying out the transaction. Ms. Carroll’s home was searched in April 2017. They found notebooks with similar references to those contained in a letter, details of the addresses of A and B, including references to their names and vehicle registration numbers. The Gardaí also found “details of how to get around Facebook security profiles …”

15. Ms. Carroll was arrested on the 7th April, 2017. She denied any knowledge of the harassment of A and B and denied that the notebooks found in her home were actually hers. After further enquiries, Ms. Carroll was re-arrested on the 3rd June 2019, further findings put to her, and again she denied all knowledge of these matters and was released.

16. The DPP directed the prosecution of Ms. Carroll in 2021. The return for trial was the 6th October, 2021. The prosecution was listed for trial on the 1st November, 2022, when an application was made to adjourn the trial pending a Supreme Court judgment in a different case. The matter was adjourned on a number of subsequent occasions and it was eventually again listed for trial on the 27th February, 2024. The following day, before the trial began, Ms. Carroll entered a guilty plea in respect of the offences listed at the commencement of this judgment.

17. The report of the Probation Officer states: -

“During interview Ms. Carroll admitted fully to the offences before the Court and indicated minimal remorse.”

The report goes on to comment: -

“Whilst Ms. Carroll states she has remorse for the victims she also states her actions were as a result of how she perceived she had been treated by the male victim. She states she did not want to see him in a happy relationship, furthermore she said she questioned why the female victim should be in a happy relationship with him when he had treated Ms. Carroll so badly.”

18. Ms. Carroll was assessed as having a low risk of reoffending and the Probation Report records her as having a long-term history of depression having been diagnosed in 2009. In 2017, at the time of her arrest, Ms. Carroll stated she was very unwell and attended Pieta House for assistance. In May 2021, following her first court appearance, Ms. Carroll attempted suicide on two occasions and was admitted to a psychiatric ward in Portlaoise for a week. At the time of the Probation Report, Ms. Carroll was taking daily medication for the treatment of depression and daily medication to assist with sleep.

19. The trial judge also had the benefit of a psychological report, which concluded that Ms. Carroll was “a psychologically vulnerable individual with a history of depression, suicide attempts and anxiety.” The report noted Ms. Carroll’s “deep regret” and concluded that there was only a low risk of similar offences being perpetrated by her in the future. The report identified certain issues which would have to be addressed by “individual psychotherapy”, and advised that (in the event of a custodial sentence being imposed) Ms. Carroll’s mental health would require careful monitoring given in particular the risk of suicidal ideation.

20. Ms. Carroll also produced a handwritten letter of apology. This included the following statement: - “I am deeply remorseful for my actions and acknowledge the seriousness of my conduct and the effect they have had on the victims. I now fully comprehend the severity of my behaviour and vow to never engage in such careless conduct again.”

The reference to “careless” conduct is consistent with the view of the Probation Officer that Ms. Carroll’s remorse was on the low end of the scale.

The sentence

21. The maximum sentence for the offences to which Ms. Carroll pleaded guilty was, at the relevant time, seven years.

22. The sentencing judge took into account the following aggravating factors: -

(1) The persistent harassment over a two year period, with letters being sent on a weekly and a bi-weekly basis.

(2) The particularly vulgar nature of the messages accusing B of spreading sexually transmitted diseases.

(3) The range of people to whom the letters were sent: friends, neighbours, and family, resulting in the loss of friendships.

(4) The fact that letters were sent to HIQA alleging very serious misconduct by B, which led to two HIQA investigations.

(5) The devastating effect on A and B which the trial judge described as “absolutely harrowing”.

(6) The premeditation. This was carefully planned. Ms. Carroll tried to avoid detection by putting gloves on while buying stamps.

23. The sentencing judge also took into account a number of mitigating factors. The first was that the accused had pleaded guilty, which the trial judge described as the most significant mitigating factor. Secondly, Ms. Carroll had no previous convictions and had never come to Garda attention before. Thirdly, there had been no contact with the victim since 2017. Fourthly, the trial judge noted the letter of apology to the court. Finally, the court noted a psychological report stating that Ms. Carroll had suffered from depression, had gone through a difficult period, and was being bullied by her principal in the workplace. The trial judge specifically referred to the two suicide attempts on the part of Ms. Carroll following her first court appearance.

24. The sentencing judge also noted that a close relative of Ms. Carroll was suffering from a very serious illness and that Ms. Carroll was assisting with the care of children affected by this development.

25. The sentencing judge felt that Ms. Carroll’s offences were “probably at the very serious end of harassment…”. She fixed a headline sentence of six years imprisonment. Taking into account the guilty plea and the lack of previous convictions, this was reduced to four years imprisonment. She then went on to suspend two years of that sentence for a period of five years particularly “in light of the fact that [Ms. Carroll] hasn’t contacted the injured parties since 2017…”.

26. The s. 10(3) order was made with Ms. Carroll’s consent.

The appeal

27. The notice of appeal lists the following grounds: -

“(1) That the learned sentencing Judge erred in principle and in law in imposing a sentence of such severity in all the circumstances of the case;

(2) Further and in the alternative, that the learned sentencing Judge erred in law in finding that the harassment committed by the Appellant lay in the “very serious end” of the range for such offences;

(3) Further and in the alternative, that the learned sentencing Judge erred in law and in principle in failing to give adequate weight to the mitigating factors submitted on behalf of the Appellant, in particular her guilty plea, lack of previous or subsequent convictions, that there had been no further contact with the injured parties and that she had been assessed by the Probation and Welfare Services as being at a low risk of reoffending among others.

(4) Further and in the alternative, that the learned sentencing Judge erred in law and in principle in failing to give adequate weight to the personal circumstances of the Appellant, in particular her mental health difficulties, her sister in law’s terminal illness and the fact that she has been assessed as a vulnerable individual among others.

(5) Further and in the alternative, that the learned sentencing Judge gave undue weight to any perceived aggravating factors in the case.”

Submissions of the appellant

28. The submissions by counsel for Ms. Carroll focused on the headline sentence of six years. It was argued that the harassment perpetrated by Ms. Carroll “was limited to letter writing” and that she had never attempted to contact the injured parties in person or in other ways. It is also submitted that the communication was not threatening in nature. Now I pause here to record that the language used in the correspondence was absolutely vituperative and (on the evidence of A and B) they did feel threatened because of what Ms. Carroll wrote.

29. Counsel for the appellant referred to two comparator cases. The first of these was DPP v Carraher (No. 2) [2018] IECA 170. The second was DPP v Doherty [2019] IECA 350. However, these judgments do not assist given the virtually unique circumstances of the current case. As Birmingham P. observed in Doherty, “…this is a statutory offence where it is unlikely that the facts of any two individual offences will be identical, or perhaps even particularly similar.” The effect on the persons targeted by Ms. Carroll was extraordinarily profound; it was certainly qualitatively different from the effect on the injured party in Doherty (serious as that was). Equally, the direct contact with the affected parties in Carraher was for a far more limited period than is the case in the current appeal and the effect of the harassment in Carraher was of a different order to the effect on A and B.

30. Counsel for Ms. Carroll emphasised, with great force, the following factors: -

(a) Ms. Carroll’s guilty plea.

(b) The passage of seven years from the ceasing of the harassment to the imposition of the sentence.

(c) The unblemished character of Ms. Carroll.

(d) The low risk of reoffending.

(e) Ms. Carroll’s mental health difficulties.

(f) Ms. Carroll’s contrition.

(g) The fact that the HIQA investigations were resolved in B’s favour.

(h) The serious illness of Ms. Carroll’s relative.

Submissions of the respondent

31. Counsel for the DPP submitted that the trial judge had been correct to find the offences as being at the upper end of the scale, justifying the headline sentence of six years. Counsel in particular emphasised certain of the aggravating factors listed by the trial judge and noted earlier in this judgment. In addition to those expressly listed by the trial judge, counsel for the Director placed particular weight on the correspondence sent after the funeral of B’s first cousin.

Decision

32. The sentencing judge was correct in identifying a number of very significant aggravating factors in this case. The actions were carefully and comprehensively premeditated, and appear to have involved a campaign by Ms. Carroll to disrupt and potentially ruin every aspect of the lives of A and B, but in particular B. This vicious correspondence was sent to B’s employer, to her friends, to B herself and (of course) to A. No element of B’s life was left untouched by Ms. Carroll’s campaign of harassment. In addition, A’s parents were subjected to these profoundly unpleasant letters.

33. The fact that information personal to A or B was deployed in the correspondence had the effect of sowing doubt in the minds of A and B as to whether a close friend was behind all this. Despite the fact that they were innocent victims in the whole thing, both A and B lost friends who naturally resented having this distressing correspondence sent to them on a regular basis. The sentencing judge was also correct to emphasise the extraordinary fact that A and B had to move to a different county to escape some of the effects of this vitriolic campaign.

34. The argument that Ms. Carroll’s actions should be treated less seriously because they did not involve personal confrontations with A or B, and did not feature the use of social media, is unconvincing. Ms. Carroll’s whole modus operandi was to conceal her identity; confronting A or B directly would have prevented her from continuing to hide her identity. The fact that A or B did not know who was behind the letters made matters worse for them rather than better. Secondly, the range of the persons to whom the letters were sent, their frequency, and the period over which the correspondence persisted means that the harassment was every bit as effective as if social media had been employed.

35. With regard to the seven years that had passed between the time the letters ceased and the sentencing hearing in 2024, it is hardly coincidental that 2017 (when the letters came to an end) was the year in which the Gardaí first interviewed Ms. Carroll during the course of their investigation. As we understand the evidence of B, even after Ms. Carroll was intercepted she continued for some period to send the letters. The fact that Ms. Carroll ceased this correspondence after the police had interviewed her is hardly surprising. Notwithstanding the fact that the cessation of correspondence may have been self-serving, nonetheless it was a matter taken into account by the sentencing judge in Ms. Carroll’s favour when suspending two years of the four year sentence.

36. The low risk of reoffending, the apology of Ms. Carroll, and her lack of previous convictions appear all to have been taken into account in reducing the headline sentence from six years to four. While this was challenged on appeal, the reduction was an appropriate one given the factors identified by the trial judge and the fact that no error of principle in this regard has been established by Ms. Carroll.

37. The serious illness of Ms. Carroll’s relative is listed as one of the factors taken into account by the trial judge in calculating the eventual sentence imposed on Ms. Carroll, and in that regard featured as a mitigating factor. It would be incorrect as a matter of principle to argue that the fact that a family member is very seriously sick is reason to reduce the appropriate headline sentence.

38. Finally, it does not avail Ms. Carroll that the HIQA investigations ultimately cleared B of any wrongdoing. The fact that this was the eventual outcome of the HIQA inquiries is not down to Ms. Carroll; rather, it is down to the fact that B was not guilty of the accusations which Ms. Carroll levelled against her. That these untrue but damaging accusations were made in the first place was quite rightly taken into account by the trial judge as being an aggravating factor.

39. Given the numerous and serious aggravating aspects of the current case, we do not believe that there is any error in principle made by the trial judge in fixing a headline sentence of six years. As already noted, we do not find any error of principle on the part of the sentencing judge in her identification of the mitigatory factors or in her assessment of the extent to which these factors should reduce the headline sentence. The decision of the sentencing judge to suspend two years of the sentence was, it was accepted at the hearing of the appeal, ultimately not something challenged by Ms. Carroll.

40. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.