35-year sentences justified for notorious rapist whose offences are at 'highest level of gravity'

Ryan Dunne

Combined sentences of 35 years in prison imposed on a notorious rapist who mounted a campaign of harassment against his victim and directed death threats against the lawyers in his trial were justified, as the offences are at “the highest level of gravity”, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

“The question of good character does not come into the case. There are no mitigating factors,” said Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy on Monday, dismissing an appeal by Michael Murray (55).

Murray, formerly of Seafield Road, Killiney, Co Dublin, was found guilty in 2021 of making death threats against Dominic McGinn SC in November 2014 and Tony McGillicuddy BL in January 2015 – the barristers who prosecuted the rape case against him in the summer of 2013.

He was also convicted of harassing his victim by advertising her online as a prostitute and making similar posts about Mr McGinn and his former defence solicitor in January and February 2015. He had pleaded not guilty to all of these offences.

In 2013, Murray was jailed for 15 years for falsely imprisoning, raping and sexually assaulting the woman at a Dublin apartment in February 2010, and abducting her child. His sentence was later increased to 19 years' imprisonment by the Court of Appeal, which was backdated to February 2010.

In July 2021, Judge Karen O'Connor sentenced Murray to nine years in prison for the threat to kill Mr McGinn and seven years for the threat to Mr McGillicuddy.

The judge sentenced Murray to the maximum seven years for the harassment of the woman he was convicted of raping “in the context of re-victimising [her] after such serious and violent offending.”

Judge O’Connor ordered that the nine-year sentence for the threat to Mr McGinn and the seven-year term for harassing his victim be served consecutively to each other, for an effective operative sentence of 16 years' imprisonment. The judge ordered that this sentence was to date from the end of his original 19-year sentence for rape.

Murray has 34 previous convictions, including those for common assault, carrying firearms, robbery and aggravated burglary, with the offending dating back to 1987.

Appealing the severity of his 16-year sentence in July, Barry White SC, for Murray, argued before the three-judge court that the trial judge erred by failing to have regard to the 'totality principle', whereby the court must be satisfied that the overall sentence is fair, just and proportionate.

The lawyer said the trial judge was of the view at sentencing that there was no mitigation in the case, but at several points during the trial, she acknowledged that the appellant had saved time and resources through concessions made. He said it was also clear that Murray was a man "of some considerable age".

In delivering the court’s judgement today on this appeal, Mr Justice McCarthy said that until Murray entered custody for the rape and related offences, he was almost continuously involved in serious criminality, including armed robbery and aggravated burglary.

“The question of good character does not come into the case. There are no mitigating factors,” he said.

Mr Justice McCarthy said there was no evidential basis upon which rehabilitation might have been a mitigating factor in Murray’s sentencing, nor one which would give rise to a suspended sentence.

He said that having identified the post-mitigation sentences, a sentencing judge who imposes a consecutive sentence must stand back and consider whether or not the cumulative term of imprisonment is proportionate.

Mr Justice McCarthy said that the court was satisfied that the sentencing judge considered this issue, as the judge said the sentences imposed reflected “the moral culpability” on the part of Murray.

Noting that the reason for the existence of the totality principle is to ensure that sentences are proportionate, Mr Justice McCarthy ruled that there had been no failure by the sentencing judge to apply this principle correctly.

“There are numerous aggravating factors and no mitigating factors,” he said, adding that each of the offences are at the highest level of gravity.

“In each case on a free-standing basis, the maximum penalty would be justified,” said Mr Justice McCarthy.

He said the sentences imposed on Murray were justified, given his re-victimisation of the woman he raped, the attack on the lawyers involved, “the moral turpitude” of the appellant, his “appalling criminal record”, the absence of mitigation, and the effects on the victims. He added that it was necessary for any sentence imposed to be consecutive.

Saying that the punishment here is “condign but proportionate”, Mr Justice McCarthy ruled that the appeal was dismissed.