The High Court has deemed unconstitutional a law mandating life imprisonment for children who have been found guilty of murder and turn 18 before their sentencing. Justice Garrett Simons stated that a judge’s ability to account for factors such as age and maturity when sentencing children guilty of murder should not be impeded by the child’s age at sentencing. He also noted the irrationality of the law’s application so far.
He purported that an underage offender’s age at the point of sentencing doesn’t influence their moral culpability. The legal request was presented by several lawyers on behalf of two teenagers, now aged 18, who are standing trial for the murder of Tristan Sherry in Browne’s Steakhouse in Blanchardstown last Christmas Eve. They will be tried as adults by the Special Criminal Court.
Their argument held that differentiation in treatment of juvenile offenders simply due to their age at court appearance breaches Article 40.1 of the Constitution, which mandates equality for all citizens before the law. The State disagreed with this contention, yet Justice Simons’s judgement has mostly been greeted affirmatively by law professionals.
Thomas O’Malley SC, a former senior law lecturer at the University of Galway, expressed his strong approval of the judgement, citing the current law as unjust. He pointed out the discrepancy that whether a child facing murder charges becomes 18 by the time of conviction is often a matter of happenstance. He also argued that the obligatory sentencing for juveniles who have grown to 18 before conviction seems unreasonable and lacking in rationality.
“The philosophy that children shouldn’t be detained and should be seen as inherently less culpable than adults is the core reason that jail-time, if applicable at all, should only be the last option,” said O’Malley.
Mr O’Malley emphatically entreated the State not to challenge the verdict, but instead invest time into revisiting, and possibly updating, the laws around the penalisation of minors who commit severe crimes like murder. He believes this evaluation has been put off for too long.
Additionally, another prominent lawyer, who wished to stay anonymous, expressed their concern that it had become a commonplace occurrence for legal courts to step in and rectify patent inequities in the child sentencing law.
In the past, youngsters found guilty of murder before hitting the age of 18 have been on the receiving end of varying levels of punishment, even going as far as lifelong imprisonment. In a specific case, a young boy, referred to as Boy A, was convicted of killing 14-year-old Ana Kriegel. He received a life sentence with a potential review after a 12-year period. His co-offender, Boy B, was handed a 15-year sentence, with an opportunity for review after eight years. They were both 13 at the time they committed the murder.
The crime scene was the Glenwood House at Laraghcon, Clonee Road, Lucan. This horrific event happened on 14th May 2018, they were later convicted unanimously by a jury in June 2019. Even when they went before Mr Justice Paul McDermott for sentencing, they were still minors.
Mr Justice Simons, in his ruling, admitted that the age and maturity level of a young offender play a significant role in determining their punishment. He also stated that there’s no valid reason to treat a certain category of juvenile convicts unfairly solely due to their age during the sentencing date. According to him, adolescents might not fully comprehend the gravity of their actions as their cognitive and psychosocial development is not fully matured.