Lawyers for teen killers say life sentences are not appropriate

Lawyers for the killers of Cameron Blair and Urantsetseg Tserendorj were speaking in the Court of Appeal in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling earlier this year

Noel and Kathy Blair, parents of the late Cameron Blair, arriving at the Criminal Courts of Justice on Parkgate St in Dublin earlier today. Picture: IrishPhotoDesk.ie

The killers of Cork student Cameron Blair and Dublin mother of two Urantsetseg Tserendorj should not be sentenced to life, their lawyers have argued, following a landmark Supreme Court ruling that has altered how the courts deal with child offenders.

Both were under 18 when convicted of murder and each was sentenced to life in detention with review after 13 years.

Killers were aged 14 and 17

The killer of Ms Tserendorj, who died near Custom House Quay, Dublin, in January 2021, is now aged 19, but was 14 then.

The second defendant was four months shy of his 18th birthday when he murdered Mr Blair, aged 20, at a house party in Cork in January 2020.

In a judgement delivered earlier this year by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley, the Supreme Court found that life sentences for a child convicted of murder should only be imposed in exceptional cases where the evidence showed their intentions and actions were akin to those of an adult.

She found that the Central Criminal Court cannot review its own sentences, as had been envisaged in these and other cases. She further stated the courts are entitled to impose part-suspended sentences where a child’s term of detention continues after they have turned 18.

At a hearing on Thursday, lawyers for each of the accused said the “exceptional circumstances” identified by Ms Justice O’Malley do not apply to their clients’ offending and therefore life sentences would not be appropriate. The three-judge court reserved judgement in both cases.

Urantsetseg Tserendorj case

Ms Tserendorj was stabbed in the neck on a walkway between George’s Dock and Custom House Quay in the IFSC, Dublin, on January 20, 2021. She was walking home from work when the boy approached and asked for money. When she said she did not have any, he produced a knife and stabbed her in the neck. He cycled away and later attempted to rob another woman.

Ulambayer Surenkhor husband of murdered Urantsetseg Tserendorj, who was attacked and died of her injuries in January 2021 at the Central Criminal Court. Picture: Collins Courts

He was found guilty of her murder by a jury in 2022.

At the Court of Appeal yesterday, Michael O’Higgins, senior counsel for the defendant, said the exceptional circumstances identified by Ms Justice O’Malley as possibly resulting in a life sentence for a child include premeditation, luring of the victim, efforts to conceal guilt, and intention to inflict sexual or particularly brutal violence. 

Mr O’Higgins said there was no premeditated intention to kill in this case, his client did not lure the victim, and there was no suggestion of an intention to inflict sexual or particularly brutal physical violence.

He accepted his client clearly intended to use a knife to commit a robbery which “developed into a fleeting intention to cause serious injury” when he got nothing from Ms Tserendorj.

He asked the court to consider his client’s level of insight and understanding of what he was doing and its consequences, given his age and lack of maturity.

Seán Guerin, senior counsel for the DPP, told the court this was an “intentional attack with a knife on a defenceless woman on a deserted street, late at night”. 

A short time earlier, the defendant had tried to rob a shop and shortly afterwards produced the knife when confronting another intended victim. Mr Guerin said it is open to the court to find that the “adult action” identified by the Supreme Court as necessary for a life sentence was present.

Cameron Blair case

The teenager who plunged the knife into Mr Blair’s neck at a house party on Bandon Rd, Cork pleaded guilty to his murder in 2020.

Karl Finnegan, senior counsel for the defendant, told the Court of Appeal that although his client was only four months shy of his 18th birthday, there is a presumption in law that as a 17-year-old he was immature and should be sentenced accordingly. 

He acknowledged his client’s offending was “very serious” but, he said, it lacked the factors identified by Ms Justice O’Malley.

There was no planning or premeditation, he did not bring the knife to the party but armed himself while there and did not arrive with the intention to kill or cause serious injury.

Anne Rowland senior counsel for the DPP, said the defendant armed himself with a large knife which had a 21cm blade. He put it in his pocket or down his trouser leg and used it to murder Mr Blair, who was acting as a peacemaker after a row broke out between the students hosting the party and the defendants’ friends.