The Court of Appeal has kept an 11-year prison sentence for a minor convicted of attempted murder and moved the review date to 1 January 2025, ruling that a review after five years in custody was too early.
The court gave its judgment on 29 July 2020, after it had already found on 2 July that the sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court was unduly lenient. The original sentence was 11 years’ imprisonment, with a review after about five years in custody.
The appeal court said the offence involved planning and premeditation, obtaining what was intended to be the murder weapon, luring the victim to the place where the attack was intended to happen, and a violent assault with significant consequences for the victim, who survived. It said the offending was at the upper end of the spectrum for attempted murder.
The court accepted substantial mitigation: the offender was 15 years and two months old at the time, had no previous convictions, had significant mental health difficulties, made admissions and pleaded guilty early. It said the original judge had not erred in reducing the pre-mitigation sentence. The appeal court considered that a headline sentence could have been life imprisonment or, if expressed as a fixed term, about 17 and a half years.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the 11-year term, with normal remission for good behaviour, would mean about eight years and three months served, and that any further reduction would be unduly lenient. The appeal court said it might not have intervened had an 11-year sentence without a review been challenged as too severe. But it considered the review mechanism useful as a target for the young respondent and as a possible route to a supervised return to society.
In resentencing, the court considered updated reports from Dr Church and Oberstown. It said the Oberstown report was broadly positive. Dr Church’s report maintained that the respondent was at high risk of serious self-harm or suicide around the appeal sentencing and a later transfer at age 18, and at high risk of serious harm to others. The court said some risk factors could be managed in the current custodial setting.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the review should come before the normally scheduled release date, but did not increase the 11-year term. It set the review for 1 January 2025 and said the process could take about three months. The judgment describes a review, not an order for release: the reviewing judge could decide against release or consider suspending some or all of the remaining sentence, potentially subject to conditions.