Two notorious cases influence term

THE sentence handed down for the killing of Celine Cawley was influenced by two notorious cases: Wayne O’Donoghue and Linda Mulhall.

In handing down the six years and 11 months sentence to Eamonn Lillis, Mr Justice Barry White made extensive reference to whether or not the lies and cover-up after Ms Cawley’s death should be viewed as an aggravating factor.

It took almost 20 minutes from the time Mr Justice White asked Lillis to stand up, to the delivery of the final sentence, beginning with an outline of the jury’s decision in finding the 52-year-old guilty of manslaughter, and how they had not been satisfied of the necessary intent to either kill or cause serious injury to his wife.

The judge said the jury had also rejected Lillis’ contention that he was not legally responsible for Ms Cawley’s death on December 15, 2008.

Sentences for manslaughter can range from life in prison to a suspended sentence, Mr Justice White told the court, adding that in deciding the matter he had canvassed the views of the defence and prosecution in the case, the latter claiming it was in the mid to upper range of seriousness, the former claiming it was at the bottom end in manslaughter terms.

“I must consider whether either of them is correct...,” he said.

“Having injured your wife at least you had the decency to phone the emergency services and with their assistance help to revive her.

“As far as I can see that is the only decent act, or acts, that you committed that morning.”

The judge said he took into account the Wayne O’Donoghue case, in which the young Cork man was jailed for the manslaughter of schoolboy Robert Holohan, and the case of Linda Mulhall, one of the so-called “Scissor Sisters”.

Both cases had come before the Court of Criminal Appeal after initial sentencing by Mr Justice Paul Carney, and Mr Justice White said they sat at opposite ends of the scale.

In the O’Donoghue case, the prosecution appealed the perceived leniency of the four-year sentence, while in the Mulhall case the respondent appealed over the perceived severity of the 15-year sentence.

In the first case the appeal failed, and there had been a reference to an earlier case and English jurisprudence where it had been stated that “the court cannot act with blinkers” and where the court is entitled to and possibly bound to “the facts and circumstances surrounding the conviction”.

With the Mulhall case again likely to appear before the courts, Mr Justice White said: “I must take the law as it is rather than what it might or might not be in future.

“It is clear from the O’Donoghue case that Mr Justice Carney took into account the circumstances and cover-up attempted in that case.”

The Court of Criminal Appeal had referred to the fact Mr Justice Carney had taken into account also the impact of O’Donoghue’s actions on the members of the Holohan family.

In the Mulhall case, too, he said, a view had been taken that the subsequent actions in hiding the body of Farah Swali Noor were “part and parcel” with the original offence.