About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IECA 303
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Patrick J. McCarthy

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal in December, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy emphasised: “The re-victimisation of MG, the attack on the lawyers involved in the first case (constituting, as it does, an attack on the administration of justice), the moral turpitude of the appellant… his appalling criminal record, the absence of mitigation and the effects on the victims are striking features of the case (the list is not exhaustive) justify the sentence.”

Background

In February 2010, the appellant lured a young Chinese woman (MG) and her four-year-old son into an apartment on the false basis that there was a lady inside who was sick and required help. 

The appellant then locked them both into the apartment and subjected the complainant to an escalating and relentless ordeal of rape and violence, in the midst of which deposited the child alone on the street at night.

Mr Dominic McGinn SC and Mr Tony McGillicuddy BL acted for the prosecution before the Central Criminal Court. Ms Tanya Mueller was the appellant’s solicitor at trial. The appellant was tried for rape and related offences and was convicted on 12 July 2013. 

Between November 2014 and February 2015, Mr McGinn SC received a phone call from a private number around midnight and a male voice said “bang bang” and hung up. 

In the following weeks, Mr McGinn received a number of calls from private numbers and began receiving texts and voicemails from numbers that he did not recognise, sometimes referring to him by name. Mr McGinn subsequently discovered that his name and telephone number had been listed online in an advertisement for sexual services.

On 9 February 2015, Mr McGillicuddy received a call private number at around 10.30pm. When he answered it, the caller enquired whether he was speaking to “Tony”. When Mr McGillicuddy asked who he was speaking to, the caller threatened to kill him. 

In January 2015, Ms Mueller received text messages referring to an advertisement which confused her, following which she discovered that her name and phone number had been advertised for sexual services online. MG also received a large number of phone calls and her number had also been advertised.

In February 2015, the appellant was found in possession of a mobile phone. An analysis revealed that it had contacted the phone numbers of each of Mr McGinn, Mr McGillicudy, Ms Mueller and MG. At interview, the appellant admitted to making threats to Mr McGinn, Mr McGillcuddy and Ms Mueller and to setting up sex advertisements online.

The appellant was indicted on six charges, including two counts of threatening to kill or cause serious harm, three counts of harassment and one count of unauthorised possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner.

The appellant entered a guilty plea in respect of the charge of unauthorised possession of a mobile phone on 14 June 2021. Following a contested trial, the appellant was found guilty by unanimous verdict on all counts.

The appellant, who had 34 previous convictions, was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on count 1, to commence following the expiration of his existing 19 years’ imprisonment imposed in respect of his crimes against MG. 

The sentence imposed on count 5 was made consecutive to the sentence imposed on count 1, and the sentences imposed on the remaining counts were made to run concurrently to the sentence imposed on count 1, resulting in an aggregate term of 16 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentences imposed, relying predominantly on the sentencing judge’s alleged failure to have regard to the totality principle in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal

Mr Justice McCarthy noted that the appellant had almost continually been involved in serious criminality since he was 15 and that the majority of his offences, which included a number of violent offences, had been tried on indictment.

The judge opined: “The question of good character does not come into the case. There are no mitigating factors.”

As to the prosecution’s submission that s.13 of the Criminal Law Act 1976 mandates the imposition of consecutive sentences for offences committed during imprisonment, Mr Justice McCarthy recognised that nonetheless, “one could not doubt that this is a case warranting consecutive sentences apart from this factor”.

The judge recounted that the appellant, who had instructed his counsel not to offer a plea in mitigation, had proceeded to make a statement to the sentencing court, with the sentencing judge intervening to stop the appellant as she was concerned that he was attempting to use the statement as a mechanism to attack MG.

The court outlined that a disturbance had then arisen in the courtroom during which a book was thrown at the sentencing judge, and that the appellant had been excluded from the courtroom for the duration of the sentencing hearing.

Mr Justice McCarthy highlighted that the sentencing judge did not have the benefit of victim impact statements as each complainant had indicated that they were content for the court to rely on the evidence provided during trial, and instead had summarised the impact of the offending on the complainants based on the evidence at trial.

As to aggravating factors, the sentencing judge had remarked that the appellant’s behaviour was egregious, premeditated and planned to cause maximum distress and constituted a “fundamental attack on our system of justice” and an “unprecedented and deliberate abuse of process on the part of Mr Murray”.

Mr Justice McCarthy explained that notwithstanding the appellant’s odious behaviour during trial, the sentencing judge had not taken this into account as an aggravating factor but merely referred to it when summarising the facts.

As to the totality principle, the court outlined that a judge who imposes a consecutive sentence or sentences must stand back so to speak and consider whether or not, taking the matter in the round, the cumulative term of imprisonment is proportionate to the wrongdoing.

Finding that the judge had regard to this principle in making the sentences imposed on counts 2, 3, 4 and 6 concurrent to those imposed on count 1, the Court of Appeal determined that there had been no failure to apply the principles thereof.

Highlighting that there were “numerous aggravating factors and no mitigating factors”, the court observed:

Having regard to s.13 of the 1976 Act, the Court of Appeal determined that irrespective of the requirements of that provision, the appellant’s case was one where it was necessary to impose consecutive sentences and that his punishment was “condign but appropriate”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Murray [2026] IECA 303