Further delay in sentencing of man convicted in February of harassing child in County Tipperary

The sentencing of a man convicted at Clonmel Circuit Court in February of harassing a 10-year-old boy in County Tipperary, has been postponed for a further two months as psychiatric and probation reports on him are still awaited. 

Judge Patrick Meghan has adjourned the case of Michael Davis with an address at Shortallstown, Dunnamaggin, Kilkenny to the November 3 sitting of the court for mention with sentencing to be finalised in December. 

Mr Davis, who is aged in his 50s, pleaded not guilty at Clonmel Circuit Court in February to harassment of a child at a location in County Tipperary on March 25, 2016. He was found guilty by a jury on February 25 following a trial and was remanded in custody to a sitting of the court in March for the production of psychiatric and probation reports.  

The reports weren’t ready on that date due to the Covid-19 crisis and Judge Meghan granted Mr Davis bail with strict conditions  and adjourned the case to the end of July. 

But on that occasion, the case was adjourned again to  September 29. At last week’s hearing, defence barrister June Morrissey BL outlined that Mr Davis’ solicitor Michael Lanigan went to huge lengths contacting the Central Mental Hospital and other hospitals  to get the psychiatric risk assessment report for his client. 

The difficulty was the Covid-19 situation. He has secured an appointment on October 7 with Professor Casey to carry out the  assessment, she pointed out. 

Judge Meghan reminded the court  he  sought the further psychiatric report as another report on the defendant referred to an incident in his childhood as a reason for his behaviour but he didn’t see the connection. 

Ms Morrissey said Mr Davis had completed all interviews with the Probation Service, which wanted to  see Prof Casey’s report before completing its report. The defence hoped to have the psychiatric report available for the sentencing hearing in December, she added,   

Prosecution barrister David Humphries expressed  concern about the length of time that has expired since the conviction. The victim’s parents were in court and they had hoped the sentencing would proceed at this hearing.    

He  was very keen for the prosecution to conclude on the next day. He noted the court had the power to make the adjournment peremptory, which means sentencing would go ahead on the  next date with no further adjournments granted. 

“My learned friend said she is ‘hopeful’ the matter will be ready. The defence should be in a position to promise,” he said and requested to adjourn the case to the  November 3 sitting for mention ahead of the sentencing hearing.  

Ms Morrissey responded that  she had no difficulty with that. She appreciated the difficulties for the complainant’s family and clarified that when she said “hopeful” she meant it was completely outside Mr Lanigan’s control. 

She stressed they had conveyed the urgency of the report to Prof Casey.