By Matt Byrne
The law governing the sentencing of children convicted of murder has undergone a significant change in recent years. Following landmark decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court, questions have arisen regarding the legality of mandatory life sentences imposed on offenders who committed murder as children but had reached the age of 18 by the time of sentencing. These developments have important implications for affected individuals and for ongoing efforts to correct historical injustices.
Procedural History:
On 13th of March 2025 the Supreme Court ruled in The People (DPP) v C.C. (2015) IESC 11 that a sentencing court had no power to build in a review of a sentence in the case of a child who has been convicted of murder. The court further clarified that life sentences for juvenile offenders should only be imposed on a child in exceptional circumstances. In all other cases the most appropriate form of sentence for a child convicted of murder is a determinate sentence with a part suspended sentence. This sentence should be tailored to reflect the age of the child at the time of the offence.
The findings in The People v C.C. were brought about by the seminal case of Musueni v Ireland and Others: Amah v Ireland and Others (2024) IEHC 523 in which the High Court found that the mandatory life sentence for individuals who committed murder as children, but turned 18 (aged out) before sentencing, is unconstitutional under Article 40.1 of the Irish Constitution.
The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2024
The aim of The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2024 which was the result of the Amah judgment was to ensure that a child who committed murder who had aged out by the time of the sentencing were not unfairly discriminated against on the grounds they had reached 18 at their sentence hearing. However, this act does not operate retrospectively.
Sec 4A (2) outlines that this amendment shall not apply in respect of a murder committed prior to the date of the coming into operation the coming onto force of that Act of 2024 where final judgement was given before that date in the proceedings in respect of the murder.
Our Position: DPP V W.M
Our client holds a similar position to the defendants in the Amah case, as he was sentenced for the murder he committed as a child, but he had aged out by the time sentencing occurred. As a result of these findings in the above-mentioned cases, we have brought forth an application on behalf of our client seeking an extension of time to correct what he submits is a blatant injustice.
Following the enactment of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2024, Ms. Justice Tara Burns granted our client’s application for an extension of time to appeal against a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. In doing so, Ms. Justice Tara Burns observed that, in the particular circumstances of our client’s case, the exception to the general rule against the retrospective application of findings of unconstitutionality arises.
This Application has been made on the basis that our client did not bring an appeal against the severity of his sentence, because, at the time, the prevailing wisdom was that the law mandated the imposition of a mandatory life sentence. As a result of the changes in the law, it has become clear that our client has been greatly prejudiced by the unconstitutional regime under which he was sentenced.
On the 13th of October 2026, the Court of Appeal took the view that a fundamental unfairness amounting to a denial of justice would be visited upon the applicant if they were not permitted to appeal against their sentences in light of the fact that the imposition of a mandatory life term of imprisonment is no longer mandatory. Accordingly, the Court granted our client an extension of time within which to bring an appeal against sentence.