Court hears litigious couple subject to' Isaac Wunder' order in family courts
A man who was found guilty of ten breaches of a safety order by sending emails and a text to a woman has had all but one of his convictions dismissed under the probation act on appeal.
The injured party told the District Court Appeals Court that the man’s actions were a “constant harassment” and that she cannot live a normal, peaceful life. The court was told that the parties are subject to an ‘Isaac Wunder’ order preventing them from taking further legal proceedings without a judge’s leave.
The man, who cannot be named to protect the anonymity of the parties involved, was convicted in the District Court of ten counts of contravening a safety order by communicating by electronic means with the injured party, contrary to section 33(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 2018.
The charges relate to emails and a text sent to the injured party on dates from January 19 to April 15, 2022.
The man received a fine of €400 euro with six months to pay on one count, with the rest taken into consideration. He later lodged an appeal against his conviction.
A garda told the appeal court that the injured party called to a station in April 2022 to make a complaint in relation to a breach of an order. She said that the injured party handed her copies of emails and a text message sent to her by the man.
In her evidence, the injured party told the court that a safety order was previously granted, with the conditions she and the man they must only communicate via the app ‘Appclose’ and that the content must be restricted to their shared child’s welfare.
However, she said that she received emails from the man’s email which didn’t directly address her but were sent to his solicitors and also sent to her.
The woman said she believed that the emails were not about their child’s welfare and that they spoke about her in a “very derogatory way”, with the intent to intimidate and humiliate.
She said that she also received a text message from the man’s phone number.
Defence counsel for the man said that there was lots of litigation between the two parties in the family courts and that there was an Isaac Wunder court order involved, which prevented them from taking further legal proceedings without the judge’s leave.
Judge Ronan Munro said that he rejected the defence’s submissions that by not addressing the emails to the woman, the appellant was communicating ‘about but not with’ her. He said that there was a case to answer by the defence.
The appellant told the court that he communicated with his solicitor and did not think he was breaching the order by this communication, saying it was about the welfare of the children.
In regards to the text, he said that there had been communication before and that he did not think it was a breach. He said that this was not an attempt to put the injured party in fear.
Defence counsel said that there must be an intentional breach of the order and that his client did not believe he had been in breach.
Judge Munro said he was satisfied that a safety order was made, that the man was notified of it and that he had breached the terms.
He said it was his view that there were some elements of the communication which were “written for her view”.
The judge found it was not a case of mistaken belief and that the appellant was demanding a response from the woman in one of the communications.
In a victim impact statement, the woman said that the man’s actions were a “constant harassment”. She said that she cannot live a normal, peaceful life and that she felt anxious and scared.
She said that the man’s actions were psychological abuse and a campaign of harassment and belittlement.
Defence counsel submitted that a conviction would have serious ramifications.
Judge Munro said that the man was found guilty of several breaches of a safety order, with a background of procedures on both sides.
He said that despite the willingness to write a letter of apology, a surer sign of remorse would have been to admit the offences.
The judge decided to find the facts proven in all matters, but dismiss the nine offences relating to the emails under section 1(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.
He decided to convict on the offence which involved a text message, so that the man would avoid a conviction for all bar one of the charges. He also imposed a fine of €200, with six months to pay.
Funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme
Comments (0)