Man guilty of harassing prominent Garda representative with ‘offensive material'
Andrew McGovern (38), of School Lane, Rathowen, Co Westmeath, appeared before Judge Bernadette Owens at Mullingar District Court on Thursday.
He previously entered a guilty plea on a charge of distributing or publishing a 'threatening or grossly offensive communication' about Antoinette Cunningham 'with intent to cause harm' between March 16th and 30th, 2023.
Ms Cunningham was the first woman to lead any of the Garda staff associations.
Last year she retired from her roles
with Agsi and the Garda after 33 years of service.
READ MORE
McGovern failed to show up for a sentencing hearing in March and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was detained by gardaí the following week and granted bail pending the case coming before Judge Owens again on Thursday.
The matter was adjourned for two months pending the preparation of a probation report, with sentence to be handed down on July 17th. Under the legislation, anyone guilty of the offence McGovern pleaded guilty to faces a fine and/or a term of imprisonment of up to six months.
Ms Cunningham was present in court for the hearing, with a number of supporters. The court was told she was available to give her victim impact evidence, after having submitted it in written form in March, but that was also adjourned.
Judge Owens said hearing Ms Cunningham's victim impact evidence would have 'more impact for me' if it was heard in July, when the probation report is also set to be available to the court.
A Probation Service representative told the court the service was not aware a report was required for Thursday's hearing. Judge Owens accepted this was because a bench warrant for McGovern had been issued at the last brief hearing associated with the case in March.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Court steps in after man gives €350,000 to poor to get to heaven
The High Court has stepped in to protect the interests of a farmer who has already given €350,000 cash to homeless and poor people on the basis God has promised him a seat in heaven. Mr Justice Michael Twomey on Friday appointed a guardian to represent the best interests of the farmer, aged in his forties, who, the court heard, only last week gave €1,000 cash to a homeless woman he met. Solicitor Katherine Kelleher, speaking on behalf of the Health Service Executive (HSE), told Judge Twomey the man had recently sold his farm for around €600,000 and by May last had been left with just €288,000 in two bank accounts. A medical report was handed into court. READ MORE 'The situation is that in a short number of weeks he has again given away added sums in the region of €38,000,' Ms Kelleher said. 'His bank accounts are literally haemorrhaging cash. I have received a phone call just this morning revealing that in one of the accounts there is now an overdraft of €65,000.' She told Judge Twomey the man claimed he had been told by God to give away all of his money and if he did so he would get to heaven. Ms Kellleher said she was applying to the court on behalf of the HSE for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to look after the best interests of the man. His total funds now stand at €250,000. Judge Twomey said he would appoint a guardian ad litem in light of the evidence that had been presented to the court. He said he would also make an order in the extended terms sought by the HSE directing the two banks concerned be directed to permit all inquiries be made regarding the man's accounts and allowing the guardian ad litem take all steps considered necessary. The proceedings were returned into early September. The man concerned cannot be identified by order of the court.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Nikita Hand to sue Conor McGregor and two former neighbours over withdrawn claims in failed appeal
Nikita Hand has initiated new legal proceedings against Conor McGregor and two people previously due to give evidence in his failed appeal against the outcome of a civil rape case Ms Hand won against him last November. The High Court action was filed on Thursday, shortly after the Court of Appeal dismissed the MMA fighter's appeal. The three-judge Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed all grounds of the appeal . Ms Hand, accompanied by friends and supporters, was in court for the ruling. Mr McGregor was not present. Ms Hand is now suing Mr McGregor, Samantha O'Reilly and Steven Cummins for damages. Mr McGregor had claimed that fresh evidence provided by Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins bolstered his insistence he was not responsible for bruising on Ms Hand's body following the alleged assault in December 2018. The fresh evidence included sworn statements from Ms O'Reilly and Mr Cummins, who lived across the road from Ms Hand in Drimnagh, Dublin in late 2018. In an affidavit sworn last January, Ms O'Reilly claimed she had witnessed, from her home, a physical altercation between Ms Hand and her then partner Stephen Redmond in their home on the night of December 9th/10th, 2018. In an affidavit, Ms Hand described her neighbours' claims as lies and said Mr Redmond never assaulted her that night or at any time during their relationship. The application to admit the neighbours' evidence was dramatically withdrawn by Mr McGregor's side at the outset of the appeal on July 1st. The court granted Ms Hand's lawyers application to have the matter referred for consideration of possible perjury, including possible induced perjury by Mr McGregor. Last November, a High Court jury found Mr McGregor had assaulted Ms Hand and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages. In the appeal court judgment on Thursday, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore, sitting with Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy and Mr Justice Michael McGrath, said the jury had to decide in essence between Mr McGregor's description of 'a rather tawdry episode' and Ms Hand's claim a criminal offence had been committed against her. The court dismissed all grounds of the appeal including a claim Mr McGregor's side was deprived of the right of an effective cross-examination in relation to the availability of expert reports. The court also ruled Ms Hand was entitled to costs, at the highest solicitor-client level, of the last-minute withdrawal, in what Mr Justice Brian O'Moore described as 'mysterious' circumstances, of two motions brought by Mr McGregor seeking to have fresh evidence admitted.
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
State seems to be suggesting even people of means should apply for legal aid, barrister for Diarmuid Phelan tells court
The State appears to have suggested that even people of means should make legal aid applications, which a barrister for law professor Diarmuid Phelan has argued is 'entirely contrary' to the spirit of the scheme. A judge will give her ruling in September as to whether the State should pay the 'enormous' legal costs for Mr Phelan following a trial that ended last January. Mr Phelan was acquitted by a Central Criminal Court jury of murdering a trespasser on his farm. The costs issue was raised on Thursday evening, on the last day of the Trinity term, before Ms Justice Siobhan Lankford. Law lecturer Mr Phelan, who has assets valued in the millions, instructed two senior and two junior counsel at his trial and did not receive legal aid. He also called expert witnesses who gave evidence following the close of the prosecution case. READ MORE Mr Phelan (56) went on trial in October 2024 after he pleaded not guilty to murdering Keith 'Bono' Conlon (36), a father of four, at Hazelgrove Farm, Kiltalown Lane, Tallaght, Dublin 24 on February 24th, 2022. Mr Phelan is a barrister, law lecturer and farmer who owns Hazelgrove, formerly a golf course. Opening the application on Thursday evening, Sean Guerin SC, who was one of two senior counsel representing Mr Phelan at his trial, told Ms Justice Lankford that the starting point - and also expressly the most important consideration - in awarding costs was the verdict. Counsel submitted Mr Phelan was entitled to his costs and the onus was really on the prosecution to show why he shouldn't succeed in the application. Mr Guerin said one of the prosecution's submissions was that Mr Phelan had the option of applying for legal aid but had chosen not to do so. The barrister said the State appeared to be suggesting that even people of resources should make a legal aid application, which he suggested was a complete misunderstanding of what the scheme was. Opposing the application, John Byrne SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), argued there was no presumption in favour of costs and one cannot simply say they had been acquitted so were entitled to their costs. He said a more complex and nuanced inquiry was required by the trial judge. Ms Justice Lankford asked both parties to articulate their views if she decided to award Mr Phelan his costs but confined it to legal aid costs. She noted there was quite a wide discretion in case law, where 50 per cent of costs had been awarded to applicants. Mr Guerin told the judge there was no warrant for doing so as those weren't the costs his client had incurred. He said legal aid was not a guide or a measure as to what are the appropriate costs in a case. Mr Byrne said the discretion seemed to be very wide and awarding legal aid costs was not something the court couldn't do, provided it set out the basis for it. Ms Justice Lankford said she hoped to deliver the court's judgement in September.
