The Supreme Court has ruled that life sentences for child killers should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances and the Central Criminal Court has no power to review, after a period of time, sentences imposed on child offenders.
In a judgment which will have a significant effect on sentences already imposed on young offenders, the court said a court may suspend part of a sentence in cases of a minor convicted of murder and other serious crimes.
A life sentence should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances where the intentions and actions can fairly be equated with those of an adult, the court said.
The judgment was handed down in the case of a 17-year-old boy sentenced to life in prison with a review after 13 years for the murder in January 2021 of Urantsetseg Tserengdorg in Dublin.
The defendant was aged 14 at the time.
The court today ruled the inclusion in the sentence of a future review was "an error in principle" which should be corrected by an appeals court.
Ms Justice O'Malley said the review cannot be carried out and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal against sentence.
However she said this did not mean his detention was unlawful and the court would hear submission on a final order.
It was the provisional view of the court that the case should be returned to the Court of Appeal for a new sentence to be imposed.
Man convicted of murder as minor entitled to anonymity - Supreme Court
In a separate judgment concerning the right to anonymity of a child offender who turns 18 during either the trial or subsequent appeal, the court ruled the offender should be entitled to retain the right to anonymity.
This case was taken by a then 17-year-old who stabbed college student Cameron Blair to death in Cork in January 2020.
He had appealed a ruling allowing him to be identified because he turned 18 during his appeal against sentence.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled the protection provided in law for the anonymity of child offenders should continue after they turn 18 if court proceedings such as a trial or appeal are ongoing.
The court ruled the prospect of losing the right to anonymity could inhibit a person’s right to appeal.
Interpreting the law to expire if the person is still before the courts when they turn 18 would be "capable of creating an unjustifiable difference in the treatment of young persons engaged in the court process and has the potential to inhibit their rights of defence and appeal to an unnecessary and possibly damaging effect," the judgment said.
In that judgment the court also said that as a result of the judgment in the case of Ms Tserengdorg’s killer, on the face of it "a small number of persons sentenced as children to a life sentence with a review are now serving straightforward life sentences".
While a person whose case has finally been determined may not rely upon a judicial decision that changes the law to reopen their case, the Supreme Court said that principle "is not entirely rigid" and it permits exceptions in the interests of justice.
Ms Justice O'Malley said those persons "ought to be given an opportunity to bring their cases back before the courts for the purpose of seeking a sentence in accordance with the principles" outlined in today's judgment.
The judge said the courts may consider extending time for appeals to be lodged in such cases.
Today’s ruling opens the possibility of appeals in several other high profile cases in recent years where sentences were imposed with a review mechanism built in.
They include the case of the teenage killers of schoolgirl Ana Kriegel who was murdered in 2018.
