A then-teenager who armed himself with a 21cm knife and murdered college student Cameron Blair by plunging the weapon into his neck has appealed his life sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently take his immaturity and "dysfunctional background" into account.
Mr Blair had told his friend: “Don’t worry lad, I don’t want to be fighting” moments after the teenager had stabbed him in the neck as the victim acted as a “peacemaker” outside a house party in Cork city three years ago.
The Central Criminal Court also heard how Cameron had "extended the hand of friendship" to his murderer earlier in the night when he suggested the teenager and his friends be allowed come into the party.
In a preliminary hearing last May, the Court of Appeal found that, should it find a lower court has made an error in sentencing a juvenile, it would not be able to impose a new sentence once the appellant has turned 18. The issue arose as the appeal court is confined to imposing a sentence which was open to the court where the trial took place, in circumstances where children are sentenced to detention and cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, while an adult cannot be sentenced to detention.
Karl Finnegan SC on Tuesday submitted to the three-judge court that while Mr Justice Paul McDermott delivered "detailed" reasons when passing sentence on the then 17-year-old defendant, the judgment took into account the accused's age more than his maturity or immaturity.
The now 21-year-old appellant, who cannot be named as he was a child at the time of the murder, was sentenced to detention for life by the Central Criminal Court in April 2020 with a review after 13 years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Mr Blair (20) by stabbing him in the neck at a house party on Bandon Road in Cork City on January 16th, 2020.
The defendant was sentenced to life in detention at Oberstown Children Detention Campus in Lusk, Co Dublin, with the sentence backdated to January 24th, 2020, when the then-teenager was taken into custody. He was transferred to an adult prison after his 18th birthday.
A review of the sentence is to be conducted by the court on November 15th, 2032, and an earliest release date of January 24th, 2033 was ordered. The court further ordered that a probation report be furnished to the court every three years.
Mr Finnegan submitted to the court that the sentence imposed on his client was "disproportionate and excessive in light of the circumstances of the case and his client's difficult personal circumstances".
Mr Finnegan further submitted that the trial judge had acknowledged that the appellant did not leave his home with a knife on the night of the murder and that it was "likely the appellant formed the relevant intention very shortly before the incident".
'Premeditation or planning'
"It is submitted that the offence was without such aggravating factors as might in other circumstances justify a minimum period of incarceration of 14 years. Such factors, it is submitted, include a lack of any real or significant premeditation or planning, callous disregard for the victim or an unremorseful attitude," said counsel.
"Furthermore, it is submitted that the impulsivity, immaturity and a serious lack of judgement by which the offence was characterised, bring it into a lower category than that for which the sentence actually imposed would be appropriate," submitted Mr Finnegan.
Mr Finnegan also submitted that the trial judge failed to attach appropriate weight to the mitigating factors, which included his client's "dysfunctional background and family life, his early guilty plea, his youth and immaturity and lack of previous convictions".
Counsel said the trial judge appeared to have taken a view that his client benefited by his age alone, rather than sufficiently taking into account his immaturity, in that he was to be sentenced under a different regime than an adult person.
"It is submitted that this was an error of principle and that it was incumbent on the trial judge to have regard to the specific youth and level of maturity displayed by the appellant on the information available to him," submitted Mr Finnegan.
Counsel said "immaturity was raised in the very first probation report from the sentencing hearing and that still is something that is a factor".
Mr Finnegan said the trial judge referenced his client's immaturity but "ultimately, more emphasis was on the appellant’s age. There was less emphasis placed on the question of maturity".
Mr Finnegan also submitted that the trial judge erred in setting any review of the sentence for his client at 13 years from the date of incarceration, when the Parole Act 2019 entitles his client to apply for a parole review after 12 years.
Anne Rowland SC, for the DPP, said the trial judge took "significant" account of mitigating factors in a case where the accused armed himself with a 21cm bladed knife taken from a kitchen and then hid it on his person and also down the side of a sofa at the house party.
Ms Rowland submitted that the trial judge noted that while alcohol had been consumed by the appellant, he "had not been very intoxicated" on the night.
Ms Rowland further submitted that the appellant took the knife from the house and went to an off-licence before returning and entering into an altercation.
Counsel said that the appellant had also initially denied the stabbing of Mr Blair to gardaí before handing over a different set of clothes for analysis.
'Vicious, deliberate and cowardly'
"The learned sentencing judge opined the fatal blow was 'vicious, deliberate and cowardly on a man who was, with great difficulty and restraint, trying to calm people down and was unarmed'," submitted Ms Rowland.
Ms Rowland said the sentencing judge also noted that the appellant "fully understood the nature and likely consequence of what he was doing".
"The appellant armed himself with a very large knife approximately one hour before he inflicted the fatal wound on the deceased. Although he was on the periphery of matters in the lead up to the fatal stabbing, he was watching events as they played out and was observed tapping the knife off his knee before he engaged with the deceased. The appellant thrust the knife into the deceased's neck," submitted Ms Rowland.
Ms Rowland noted that the appellant, then aged 17 years and eight months, was at a more advanced developmental stage when he stabbed Mr Blair than someone at a younger stage of around 13-15 years and benefited from being convicted as a child, as opposed to an adult.
Counsel submitted that at "no point" was the issue of a parole review raised during the appellant's sentence hearing and that if a review was granted after 12 years then it would mean an outright life sentence would have had to be imposed, as it might be on an adult.
President of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice George Birmingham said the court would reserve its judgment in the matter and adjourned the appeal to December 5th, when parties are also invited to make their submissions on any issues regarding the ongoing anonymity of the appellant.
