A man who tried to murder a 10-year-old girl “to see what it was like to kill someone” has lost a Supreme Court appeal against a life sentence imposed on him.
Eric Daniels (29) had asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the sentence imposed on him for the attempted murder of the child 13 years ago amounted to constitutionally impermissible preventive detention.
The five-judge Supreme Court unanimously ruled it was not preventive detention and was a proper sentence under Irish law.
Daniels, Elm Park, Clonmel, Co Tipperary, pleaded guilty in February 2003 to attempting to strangle the child with a boot lace after he had lured her to a field near his home on the pretext of looking for puppies.
The girl tried to scream and he pushed her down on the grass where she pretended she was dead. He removed the lace and shortly afterwards she was able to run home where she alerted a babysitter.
Following his arrest, Daniels, who was aged 18 at the time, told gardaí he “wanted to see what it would be like to kill somebody” and was just trying to inflict pain.
He pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court to attempted murder. In February 2003, Mr Justice Paul Carney imposed a life sentence, saying he had no confidence Daniels "won't try this again".
The court’s primary function must be to prevent a repeat of “anything of this kind” as well as the protection of the community, Mr Justice Carney added.
Daniels’ appeal was turned down by the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) in 2006.
He then got permission to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court on the basis the CCA’s decision raised exceptional points of law which should, in the public interest, be decided by the Supreme Court.
The court was asked to decide whether the life sentence amounted to a form of preventive detention which was not constitutionally permissible.
The DPP, while agreeing preventive detention is impermissible, argued this was a case which merited a life sentence, although such a sentence for attempted murder is not mandatory.
The protection of the public achieved by such a sentence was an incidental effect of the sentence, the DPP argued.
Giving the Supreme Court's decision, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said comments made by Mr Justice Carney could have given the impression the sentence was, in some measure, intended to include a degree of preventive detention.
However, it was clear from the sentencing judge’s remarks that a life sentence, although harsh, could be examined in the future by the prison parole board and the sentencing judge had regard to the possibility of rehabilitation, she said.
This was one of those rare cases in which the maximum sentence permissible was appropriate, Ms Justice Dunne said.
It had been conceded by Daniels’ lawyers that it is lawful to give the maximum sentence even when there are significant mitigating factors including a plea of guilty, the fact this was a first offence and the age of the accused.
Ms Justice Dunne said the court was satisfied the life sentence did not constitute preventive detention and was a sentence “appropriately imposed having regard to the very grave circumstances of the offence”.