Three murderers serving life in prison for separate offences carried out when they were under 18 have argued that a change in the law should allow them an extension of time to appeal their sentences.
Counsel for one of the applicants told the Court of Appeal “the law in this area is in a complete and utter mess”.
Before the court were a now 32-year-old man who murdered David Byrne (19) in 2011; a 25-year-old man who murdered Adam “Floater” Muldoon (23) in 2018; and a 31-year-old man who murdered Martin Brophy (22) in 2012.
All three were 17 at the time they committed the respective murders, which they had pleaded not guilty to, and all three subsequently lost appeals against their convictions.
READ MORE
Each was sentenced to life in prison, but the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2024 removed this mandatory life sentence for individuals who commit murder while under 18 but turn 18 before sentencing.
There was also a landmark Supreme Court decision delivered by Judge Iseult O’Malley in March 2025, in which the court found that life sentences for a child convicted of murder should only be imposed in exceptional cases where the evidence showed the intentions and actions of the child were akin to those of an adult.
All three men have now applied for extended time to appeal their life sentences.
In advancing the appeal on behalf of the murderer of Byrne, barrister Mark Lynam said all three appellants committed murder as children but did not stand trial until they were over 18. He argued it was unconstitutional for some children to be sentenced before they reach 18 and receive a sentence of 11 to 12 years, while others just reach 18 and get the mandatory sentence of life in prison.
Lynam said the amendment to the law set down that only in exceptional circumstances should a life sentence be imposed on a child defendant, with the mandatory life sentence acceptable only if it meets the justice of the case.
[ Legal challenge to inquest into IRA man killed in SAS ambush is rejectedOpens in new window ]
Judge Alexander Owens said counsel was seeking an extension of time to appeal the sentences, but final judgment in law meant the case had progressed to the point where it could be appealed no further.
“This is a case about children, children who the State has promised to protect, so if it’s in the interest of justice that they should have lawful, just sentences imposed on them, then this court should extend time for that,” said Lynam, adding that if the court extended the time to appeal, then the case had not reached finality.
“If this court rejects our application to extend time, then finality has been reached,” he said.
He went on to say there could not previously have been an appeal against the mandatory life sentence, but now there could be.
“We have three people here who were given the mandatory sentence without being given the opportunity to appeal it,” he said.
Barrister Michael O’Higgins, representing the man who killed Brophy, said “the law in this area is in a complete and utter mess”.
“It’s pure happenstance as to the date of sentence. We can’t have a law that is dependent on the day of the week or the date in the calendar, and that’s what we have here,” he said.
“My client has served 14 years and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This is something that the court has to grapple with.”
He said nobody was seeking to challenge the verdict in this case, merely seeking an enlargement of time.
Barrister Giollaíosa Ó Lideadha, representing the man who murdered Muldoon, said the application for an extension of time involved the interests of justice. He said there was nothing in the 2024 Act that said the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction should be set aside in these matters.
In response, the State was represented by barristers Anne-Marie Lawlor, Anne Rowland and Michael Delaney.
It is the State’s case that the men’s individual conviction appeals have been dismissed and, as no sentence appeals had been lodged within the prescribed time period, the judgment in each case became final on the date of the rejected appeal.
Therefore, it is argued, the appellants are precluded from availing of the amendment to the law effected by the 2024 Act.
Mr Justice John Edwards, presiding over the three-judge court, said judgment in the case would be reserved to a later date.
