The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) has rejected the latest bid by Linda Mulhall to challenge her 15-year-sentence for the killing of her mother’s boyfriend.
Lawyers for Ms Mulhall had asked the CCA to refer issues relating to how that sentence was determined to the Supreme Court on grounds they involved points of law of exceptional public importance but the CCA today refused the application.
Ms Mulhall (35) was found guilty in October 2006 of the manslaughter of Farah Swaleh Noor (39), a native of Somalia, on March 20th 2005. She received a 15 year sentence.
Her sister Charlotte (28) was convicted of the murder of Mr Noor who was killed during a row following a night of drinking and drug taking in a north city Dublin flat. Mr Noor’s body was later cut up and dumped in the Royal Canal. His head was buried in a field in Tallaght and never found.
The CCA previously rejected an appeal against Ms Mulhall’s 15-year jail term after which her lawyters applied to the court to certify points of law in the case for determination by the Supreme Court.
Today, the CCA said no points of exceptional public importance had been raised to merit a referral to the Supreme Court.
The CCA noted Linda Mulhall’s trial had heard she was greatly troubled as a result of sexual remarks made by Mr Noor to her which led to the attack on him by the sisters.
Linda Mulhall had raised the defence of provocation which the jury clearly accepted and as a result she was found not guilty of murder but of manslaughter.
The CCA also noted the sentencing judge imposed an 18-year sentence but reduced to 15 on the basis of several mitigating factors.
Dismissing her appeal against that sentence, in October 2006, the CCA rejected arguments it was too long, did not include a non-custodial portion and the trial judge should have awaited reports on her background before imposing sentence.
While finding Mr Justice Paul Carney had erred in not waiting for the reports, which the CCA itself later considered, their absence did not mean the trial judge had imposed an unduly severe sentence, the CCA ruled.
At the CCA today, Ms Justice Fidelma Macken, with whom Mr Justice Roderick Murphy and Mr Justice Eamon deValera agreed, rejected the application to certify points of law for determination by the Supreme Court.
The court ruled no question of law arose from Ms Mulhall’s claim she was entitled to a referral under Section 3 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1993, which allows the CCA to quash a sentence and make orders it considers appropriate.
It rejected arguments a point of law arose as to whether the trial court could, in deciding sentence, take into account the actions engaged in by Ms Mulhall after the killing of Mr Noor.
The evidence was there was “a seamless chain of events” from the night of the killing to the subsequent dismemberment of the body and its secret disposal, the court said.
There was no suggestion in the evidence of any intervening period, other than what would naturally occur in the course of such events, between the killing and these actions.
The court also rejected arguments it was bound to take into account, when constructing the sentence, Linda Mulhall was a first time offender, a mother of young children, and the need for rehabilitation.
The trial judge had not committed any error in principle by failing to provide for a non-custodial element to the sentence and there was no argument to support the claim this raised a point of public importance, Ms Justice Macken added.
The court also rejected arguments that a point of law arose related to whether Ms Mulhall was entitled to a discount on her sentence where a defence of provocation had been successfully raised.