The Court of Appeal has refused a sentence appeal by a teenager convicted of murdering Urantsetseg Tserendorj, leaving in place detention for life with a review after 13 years.
The judgment, delivered on 19 December 2023, found no error in principle in the sentence imposed. The panel said the sentence was at the upper end of the appropriate range, and observed that it might have set a slightly earlier review date if sentencing the appellant itself. It nevertheless concluded that the sentence fell within the range available to the sentencing judge.
The appellant was a few days short of 15 when the attack took place on Custom House Quay in Dublin on 20 January 2021. The Court of Appeal’s account said CCTV showed him approach Ms Tserendorj by bicycle, produce a knife and swipe at her. She suffered a life-threatening injury to her carotid artery and died on 4 February 2021. The appellant was convicted of murder by a majority jury verdict on 11 November 2022, after pleading not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter.
He was sentenced on 20 February 2023 to detention for life, with a review after 13 years, backdated to 21 January 2021. The sentencing judge had also ordered regular probation reports during the review period.
On appeal, the appellant argued that life detention was disproportionate and that a determinate sentence or an earlier review was warranted. His grounds cited his age, drug addiction, remorse, early admissions, manslaughter plea and progress in custody. The prosecution argued the sentence was justified by the gravity of the offence and was consistent with other juvenile murder sentences.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the sentencing judge had recognised mitigating factors, including the appellant’s age, addiction, admissions and progress. It also relied on the circumstances of the attack and the court’s assessment that the appellant had planned to use a knife to rob someone, while the intention to cause serious injury developed during the encounter. The court said the sentencing judge was entitled to regard the offending as very serious.
The court rejected the argument that a life sentence with a review date was legally inappropriate for a juvenile. It said that approach could account for the seriousness of an offence while allowing later consideration of rehabilitation. It also rejected the claim that the sentence was disproportionate because release at the 13-year review was not guaranteed. The review does not itself guarantee release; the court said the appellant would need to demonstrate rehabilitation and suitability for release.
The sentence appeal was refused. The underlying murder conviction was not the subject of this appeal; the judgment notes that a conviction appeal had previously been unsuccessful.