Teenager loses appeal against conviction for murder of Urantsetseg Tserendorj

The appellant, who was just 14 years old at the time of the offence, will continue to serve his life sentence

Urantsetseg Tserendorj (pictured) was stabbed in the neck on a walkway between George’s Dock and Custom House Quay at the IFSC, Dublin on January 20, 2021, after the teenager, who was 14 at the time, attempted to rob her as she walked home after work.

The teenager who murdered mother of two Urantsetseg Tserendorj as she walked home from work is to remain serving his life sentence after his conviction was upheld on Thursday by the Court of Appeal.

Delivering the ruling on behalf of the three-judge court, Ms Justice Tara Burns said that none of the appellant’s grounds of appeal could be upheld.

The appellant, who was just 14 years old at the time of the offence, had denied the murder of Ms Tserendorj but had pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. On November 11, 2022, he was found guilty of her murder by majority jury verdict following two trials. The first trial had ended with a jury disagreement. He was sentenced to life in prison, subject to a review after 13 years.

Ms Tserendorj was stabbed in the neck on a walkway between George’s Dock and Custom House Quay at the IFSC, Dublin on January 20, 2021, after the teenager, who was 14 at the time, attempted to rob her as she walked home after work.

Ms Tserendorj was declared dead on the evening of January 29, 2021, because of a lack of oxygen to the brain caused by a stab wound no bigger than 1.5cm that partially severed her carotid artery. The mother of two, who worked in Dublin’s city centre, had moved to Ireland with her husband and two children approximately 15 years before she was killed.

At the Court of Appeal in July, Michael O’Higgins SC, representing the teenager, contended that the trial judge Mr Justice Tony Hunt erred in permitting the prosecution to call evidence of another attempted robbery by the appellant and of comments made during that offence, which took place shortly after the fatal assault.

Mr O’Higgins also submitted that the jury should have been discharged following a comment made by prosecuting counsel, Seán Guerin SC, during his opening address that the teenager “went for the jugular” when he stabbed Ms Tserendorj.

In addition, Mr O’Higgins submitted that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence a hearsay account of the assault given by the deceased to her husband, and counsel further submitted that the trial judge displayed an attitude that was negative towards the appellant and inappropriate in light of the fact that he was a child.

Today's ruling

In returning the Court of Appeal's judgement on Thursday, Ms Justice Burns said that the evidence of another attempted robbery by the appellant on the night was relevant for the jury to consider.

During this incident the appellant attempted to steal a woman’s iPhone and took out a knife, saying to the woman: “That could have been a lot worse for you”. Ms Justice Burns said the trial judge did not err in determining that “the probative value of this evidence far outweighed any prejudicial effect”.

Concerning the remark by Mr Guerin at the opening of the trial that the appellant “went for the jugular”, Ms Justice Burns said that while this comment was emotive, “it did no more than express the case the respondent was making against the appellant”. Accordingly, she ruled that the trial judge did not err in failing to discharge the jury in light of this comment.

Regarding the account of the assault given by Ms Tserendorj to her husband, Ms Justice Burns said: “It is clear from the evidence of the deceased’s husband that the deceased was of the view that she was dying.” She said that the test for the admission of this evidence as an exception to the hearsay law was met and the trial judge did not err in admitting it.

On the final ground of appeal concerning Mr O’Higgins’ assertion that the trial judge displayed an attitude that was negative towards the appellant, Ms Justice Burns said that the complaints made with respect to the manner in which the trial judge conducted the case “have no effect with respect to the fairness of the trial and do not render the verdict in the trial unsafe whatsoever”.