NI Crown Court: Murderer of Natalie McNally will serve 31 years in prison prior to consideration for release

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] NICC 8
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Crown Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Patrick Kinney

Delivering his sentencing remarks for the Crown Court of Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Patrick Kinney opined: “The sentence I pass today cannot possibly reflect the value of Natalie’s life or indeed that of her unborn child Dean. Even more pointedly it cannot in any way meet the sense of grief and loss felt by the family at this time. I can only hope that bringing this long criminal process to a conclusion assists with some measure of closure for those who miss Natalie so much.”

Mr MacCreanor KC appeared with Miss Herdman for the Crown instructed by the Public Prosecution Service, and Mr Kearney KC appeared with Mr Patton for the defendant instructed by Campbell and Caher Solicitors.

Background

The defendant and Natalie McNally were in a short relationship which started in or about August 2022. Shortly thereafter, Ms McNally fell pregnant. Throughout this time, Ms McNally maintained relationships with other individuals, including a previous boyfriend.

While there was no evidence before the jury that the defendant had accessed Ms McNally’s phone, he appeared to be aware of some of her messages with other individuals.

On the evening of 14 December 2022 and into 15 December 2022, the defendant pre-recorded a six-hour video for streaming on YouTube, which was designed to be shown as a “live-stream” on 18 December 2022, the day of Ms McNally’s murder.

The deceased died due to a combination of neck compression, stab wounds to her neck and blunt force trauma to her head.

The defendant sent a set of false messages to inter alia the deceased’s phone in the early hours of 19 December expressing concern and asking why she was not replying to him, and convinced his friend Anne to visit the deceased’s home later that day purportedly to see if the deceased was okay.

After visiting the deceased’s home on 19 December, the defendant orchestrated a series of communications with emergency services, in which he pretended to be distraught. The defendant attempted to blame an ex-boyfriend of the deceased for her death.

The defendant used the so-called live-stream as his alibi immediately to police when they arrived at the murder scene later that same day.

When it was put to the defendant by police at interview that the stream was pre-recorded, he initially challenged that statement. Later, the defendant provided a prepared statement confirming that the stream had been pre-recorded and asserting that on the night of the 18 December, he had remained in his house drinking.

CCTV evidence gathered by police showed the defendant leaving his home in Lisburn on the day of the murder and making his way to the deceased’s address. He attempted to change his appearance before making the return journey to his home, where he then deleted the “live-stream” video.

The defendant was unanimously convicted by a jury of Ms McNally’s murder. In circumstances where the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment at the conclusion of the trial, Mr Justice Kinney was required to consider the minimum period of time to be served in prison before he could be considered for release.

The Crown Court

The court considered a pre-sentence report, in which the defendant was recorded as having claimed that he had no memory of the night of the murder and that he was sorry for what he had done to the defendant, her family and his unborn child.

Although the defendant had no prior criminal record, the report assessed the defendant as posing a significant risk of serious harm with a high likelihood of reoffending.

As to the relevant sentencing guidelines, the court considered Article 5(2) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001, R v McCandless [2004] NICA 269 and R v Whitla [2024] NICA 65.

Noting that in sentencing “there is a caution against an overly mechanistic approach”, Mr Justice Kinney highlighted that sentencing starting points are “matters of guidance and were never designed to be a straitjacket creating an unyielding, compartmentalised structure”.

Mr Justice Kinney considered that he had no hesitation in concluding that the appropriate starting point in this case was the higher starting point of 20 years reserved for cases “involving exceptionally high culpability”.

The judge explained that it was necessary to vary the starting point upwards in light of the aggravating factors in the case, such as the nature and extent of the injuries caused to the deceased in the “brutal and frenzied attack”.

The court remarked that the case was also “replete” with other aggravating factors, including the defendant’s false alibi, his attempt to erase the stream from his computer and to avoid detection, the manipulation of others, and his attempt to “point the finger definitively at an innocent third party” while laying a “trail of breadcrumbs towards the ex-boyfriend”.

In particular, the court emphasised the serious aggravating factor of the domestic violence context of the crime, outlining: “Offenders such as the defendant exploit emotional proximity, vulnerability and easy access to their victim. This was not a spontaneous action by the defendant but one which was carefully planned. The murder of women by a current or former partner is a grave and recurring phenomenon in our society.”

Mr Justice Kinney was satisfied that the deceased was a vulnerable individual who was murdered by someone she trusted, the father of her unborn child, “within what ought to have been the security and safety of her own home, a place of sanctuary to which the defendant had gained access on the night of the murder”.

The judge continued: “The defendant did not just kill Natalie McNally. Her unborn child also died as a result of the murderous assault. The defendant was fully aware that Natalie was pregnant. He intended to kill her and he knew that her baby, at such an early stage of the pregnancy, would have no chance of surviving the attack.”

Mr Justice Kinney considered that the law does not treat an unborn baby of that age as a separate crime, but that there is an “emotional and moral gravity in deliberately and prematurely ending a pregnancy, especially, as in this case, a wanted pregnancy”.

Finding that the deceased’s murder was a deliberate and successful attempt to prevent the eventual birth of the child, the court determined that the personal circumstances identified by the defence in mitigation carried little weight in the sentencing process and did not justify a reduction in the starting point or the ultimate tariff.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Crown Court imposed a tariff of 31 years before the defendant could be considered for release from prison.

The King v Stephen McCullagh [2026] NICC 8