A man who took 12,000 pictures of his female neighbour in her garden has had his jail term scrapped.
Mark Mooney admitted taking the snaps of the woman without her consent over an eight year period.
He was jailed in the district court for two months last year - but challenged the sentence in the High Court, which today set aside the sentence.
Mooney, aged in his 50s and from Corish Park in Wexford town, had admitted harassing a neighbour, contrary to Section 10 of the 1997 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act.
The district court judge hearing the case imposed a nine-month custodial sentence on Mooney but suspended the final seven months on condition he did not live within 8km of the injured party.
Mooney brought a High Court challenge against the orders.
In his judgement today, Mr Justice Garrett Simons agreed that the sentence was disproportionate and should be set aside, and will rule at a later date if the matter is to be sent back to the district court.
The court heard that Mooney had taken thousands of photos of the woman over an eight-year period while she was in the garden of her house.
She was unaware that she was being photographed. Garda recovered the photographs from the hard drive of Mooney’s computer.
Mooney, represented by Dylan Redmond BL, brought High Court judicial review proceedings seeking to have the sentence set aside.
The action was brought on grounds including that it was unreasonable, disproportionate and adversely affected his constitutional rights.
It was also submitted that the District Court orders were made in excess of jurisdiction.
He claimed that the order would prohibit Mooney from living in his home town.
The proceedings were against the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The DPP had opposed the action and had argued that Mooney’s complaints should be dealt with by way of an appeal of the District Court’s orders to the Circuit Court.
In his decision, Mr Justice Simons said that he was satisfied to set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court on Mooney in its entirety.
He said that the District Court orders against Mooney were made in excess of that court’s jurisdiction.
The restriction imposed on Mooney, he said was “disproportionate in that it involves an unjustified and excessive interference with the applicant’s right to liberty and his right to free movement within the State”.
He said that this was “one of the exceptional cases where judicial review was a more appropriate remedy than an appeal”.
The judge then adjourned the matter to October when he said he would consider submissions from counsel in the case whether the matter should be returned to the District Court.
Mooney was not present in court for today's ruling.
