Rapist who harassed three women journalists is to spend longer in prison
Mark McAnaw (53), previously of Letterkenny, Co Donegal, was before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on Friday for breaching the conditions of a suspended sentence.
He pleaded guilty last month to harassing three journalists – Nicola Tallant, Amanda Brunker and Deirdre Reynolds – in August 2023.
At that time McAnaw was under the suspended portion of a sentence for an aggravated burglary committed in 2018.
READ MORE
In June 2023 McAnaw received a sentence of eight years and four months, backdated to when he went into custody in 2018, for the aggravated burglary. The final 16 months of the sentence was suspended for 16 years on strict conditions.
He was released from custody on that sentence in July 2023, several weeks before the harassment of the three journalists took place.
On Friday he was before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for a hearing in relation to the activation of the suspended portion of the sentence for aggravated burglary.
Judge Martin Nolan was told the application to reactivate the suspended portion of the sentence had been triggered by McAnaw breaching the conditions of the suspension. These were his convictions for the harassment of the three journalists and a separate District Court conviction for a breach of the Sex Offenders' Act.
Rebecca Smith, defending McAnaw, said her client was homeless following his release from custody and had struggled to access medication he had been on. McAnaw also found it difficult to abide by the conditions imposed, she said.
The judge said he could activate none, all or part of the suspended portion of the 2023 sentence, which would run consecutive to the 11-year sentence imposed on McAnaw last month.
He said McAnaw had committed 'rather serious offences' following his release from custody in 2023, which had already been dealt with by another judge.
Judge Nolan reactivated 10 months of the 16 months suspended portion of the 2023 sentence and directed it to run consecutively to the 11-year sentence McAnaw is serving.
Last month Judge Pauline Codd handed McAnaw an 11-year sentence for the harassment of Ms Tallant, Ms Brunker and Ms Reynolds.
The court heard McAnaw repeatedly sent the three women emails and messages of a violent and sexually threatening nature, which escalated to him threatening to put a 'bullet' in one of them. He also referred to himself as an 'IRA Top Boy'.
He also turned up at the offices of the Sunday World on Talbot Street, Dublin, and when refused entry he went to a cafe across the road. When gardaí approached him there, McAnaw was writing an email to Ms Tallant.
McAnaw is detained at the Central Mental Hospital (CMH), but does not accept his diagnosis of schizophrenia and has declined to take medication, the court was told.
His previous convictions include rape, kidnapping and assaults causing actual bodily harm.
McAnaw refused to enter a bond before the court last month, which would have suspended the final 12 months of the 11-year sentence imposed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
42 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
Irish Times
42 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Seán Moran: The FRC set out to save football but may also have rescued referees
We are now less than two weeks from the start of the wild bird hunting season. Soon, shots will ring out, portending existential danger for, among others, red grouse, mallards, gadwalls, shovellers and tufted ducks. And traditionally, referees, who have come to regard this time of year with much the same trepidation as a golden plover. In October 2022, then president Larry McCarthy launched a protection programme, Respect the Referee. The backdrop was almost weekly bulletins on spectator and team official outrages directed at referees. To attend the launch, I had to reschedule a coffee morning. When I explained that I would be attending a new initiative to assist referees, my deferred appointment helpfully suggested something that might also be of interest to game birds: 'Arm them?' In its crusade to save football, however, the Football Review Committee (FRC) may well have provided less lethal measures to rescue refereeing. The impact of the various rule changes or enhancements has been well publicised, especially the solo and go with its tidying up of the flashpoints that occur when a free is awarded. READ MORE The penalties for disrespecting refereeing decisions are also severe – including the 50-metre advancement of disputed frees – and have had the predictable effect of discouraging and vastly reducing dissent and gamesmanship in interactions with referees, allowing match officials clearer minds and greater bandwidth to deal with the primary tasks of upholding rules. There is, though, more to the FRC's impact than the obvious starting point of penalising bad behaviour to the extent that it becomes unprofitable. There were also the methods by which the proposals were formulated in the first place. Speakin g to The Irish Times on Saturday , Tyrone All-Ireland referee Seán Hurson strongly made this point. 'We've seen changes in the past where there was no consultation with officials and then, rules were maybe not implemented the way that some people thought they should have been implemented,' Hurson said. 'But this time, both FRC and the officials seem to be happy, based on our last meeting there a few weeks ago. They also took to heart different recommendations through the season, which was probably a direct result of some of the meetings. 'So, we felt as referees that we were being listened to, and issues that we were having were being addressed.' Coincidentally, on the same day Monaghan intercounty referee Martin McNally was making the same point to Colm Keys in the Irish Independent. Referee Martin McNally said referees have been able to bring concerns and recommendations to the FRC. Photograph: James Crombie/Inpho 'We have had Jim Gavin [FRC chairman] present at nearly every referees' meeting. We have had input and have been able to bring concerns and recommendations to the FRC. It's not a case that these things were being dictated to us,' he said. The easy-going give and take between the committee and referees allowed issues to be resolved without difficulty. This was useful in implementing the stipulation that only captains could speak with the match official. Hurson felt that restriction was a bit of a straitjacket because he valued talking to players, arguing that all referees knew instinctively the difference between genuine queries, particularly given the experimental nature of the rules, and backchat. Having sought clarification from Gavin, he was told that 'the communication was still okay'. [ Four-point goals and handpass restrictions: My experience of playing with football's latest experimental rules Opens in new window ] Maurice Deegan, the former All-Ireland referee and FRC member, who took charge of intercounty practice matches and wrote about for The Irish Times , observed that the knowledge of the new rules on the part of players was very good, often better than in respect of the original rule book. Deegan also said that the two-way communication illustrated genuine interest in the new rules and making sure they were properly grasped. This collaborative approach – administrators, match officials, players and management all pulling together – has been central to the success of the rules and their positive impact. It is true that the new measures are currently under the spotlight during club matches and a season of championships at those levels have yet to be concluded and analysed. It is also true that perhaps the full ordnance of managerial and coach analysis of the new dispensation has yet to be devised with a view to pressurising referees in whatever grey areas can be identified. Neither of these potential vulnerabilities have yet come to pass and the goodwill and co-operation that marked the first six months of the FRC framework have set a positive precedent, but there will be anxious eyes on how it is all progressing. Should the optimal evolution of either game be held back simply to bolster uniformity? Club players are, by most accounts, equally as happy with the FRC rules as their intercounty colleagues and that enthusiasm can help them to bed in this club season. One issue that is coming under strain is the growing disparity between football and hurling rules. Were the four-point goal, which was again trialled recently after being dropped at the start of the year, to re-emerge it would drive in the wedge between the games that little bit deeper. This is not altogether new. After all, in the late Joe Lennon's exhaustive 2000 study, Towards a Philosophy for Legislation in Gaelic games, he states: 'Since these games are completely different in form, it is not surprising that the first sets of rules were also quite different...' The hurling field of play (200 yards x 150) was more than three times the size of a football pitch (120 x 80) and the goals considerably larger (20 x 10 compared with 15 x 8) and playing time was 80 minutes, compared to an hour. Back on planet 21st century, the problem is practical. As Donal Smyth, Croke Park's manager of match officials put it, 'we have 40 per cent of our referees that do dual hurling and football, so one game going away from the other can be a big problem'. Nonetheless, should the optimal evolution of either game be held back simply to bolster uniformity?
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
New forensic evidence identifies 1970s IRA bombers
Several prime suspects responsible for the Guildford pub attacks, and other IRA bombings and shootings in Britain between 1974-1976, have been identified, according to legacy investigators in Belfast . Suspects for these attacks, now in their 70s and 80s, have been linked to the incidents by forensic evidence subjected to new scientific testing ordered by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) in Belfast. However, the Irish Government faces pressure to offer greater co-operation with legacy investigations into killings that took place during the Troubles. Investigators have made progress in an investigation into the no-warning pub bombings in Guildford Surrey. The bombings occurred five days before the British October 1974 general election. READ MORE The Horse and Groom bomb, believed to been left by a man and women posing as a courting couple, killed four soldiers from the nearby barracks and a civilian. The victims were aged between 17 and 21. The ICRIR investigation focuses on a February 1974 M62 motorway coach bombing, in which the IRA placed 25 pounds of high explosive inside the luggage locker of a coach carrying off-duty soldiers and their families. The bomb detonated just after midnight as the bus travelled to a British military base, killing nine soldiers and three civilians and injuring 38. It resulted in wrongful conviction and jailing of Judith Ward, who served 17 years before her conviction was quashed. At the heart of the investigation by the ICRIR are the construction methods used to make the IRA bombs for the 1970s campaign in Britain. 'Due to very significant advances in forensic science since these atrocities half a century ago, we have developed some highly significant leads,' said the organisation's deputy commissioner Keith Surtees. There is 'the real prospect of finally bringing' IRA members who were involved in some 70 bombings and shootings to justice, the former Metropolitan Police commander told The Irish Times. [ Forensic advances bring chance of new prosecutions for 1970s IRA bombings Opens in new window ] The ICRIR also wants the Irish Government to strengthen co-operation with its work. Investigators involved in Operation Kenova were unhappy with the help offered previously. Separate An Garda Síochána and judicial liaison mechanisms to expedite requests for evidence and information that is held by the Garda, military intelligence in Dublin or other quarters is now sought. 'If you want to fully investigate cases like Narrow Water, a joint framework with the Irish Government is needed,' one official closely involved in the situation told The Irish Times, speaking on condition of anonymity. Surtees was the chief investigator for Operation Kenova, which established the British agent code-named Stakeknife's involvement in 13 murders and 15 abductions of suspected fellow agents and informers. Up to now, legacy investigations have largely, but not entirely, centred on prosecutions against British soldiers for alleged actions during the Troubles, so the new chapter in the ICRIR's work will be keenly noted in many quarters. Following requests from family members, the ICRIR is also investigating the August 1979 ambush that killed 18 British army soldiers in Warrenpoint, when the IRA detonated explosives from the southern side of the Border. The Warrenpoint killings on northern side of Carlingford Lough, caused by two large roadside bombs at Narrow Water Castle at the Co Down beauty spot, constituted the deadliest attack on the British army during the Troubles. Both bombs were deliberately set off half an hour apart by radio control by IRA men 200 yards across the lough on its southern bank. A British tourist was also killed on the shore in Co Louth by army gunfire. The attack happened five hours after Lord Louis Mountbatten, uncle to the late Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was assassinated by an IRA bomb in his fishing boat in Mullaghmore, Co Sligo. Two family members and a 15-year-old boy also died.
