Sentences for ‘cold and calculating’ child rapist reduced because it was ‘too harsh’

Brandon Mullin was sent to a young offenders facility for 13 years, with an additional three years license, but his sentence was reduced

A child rapist described by a judge as “cold and calculating” has had his sentence reduced by the Court of Appeal.

Brandon Mullin, now 20, was sent to a facility for young offenders for 13 years in November 2021, with a further three years’ license at Liverpool Crown Court.

However, his lawyers appealed because the sentence was unreasonably harsh Liverpool Echo reports.

Mullin’s attorneys argued that the boy’s own traumatic upbringing and immaturity were not reflected in the sentence and three years were deducted from his sentence.

The judge who returned the original sentence, Garrett Byrne, said the victims of Mullin’s abuse suffered “the worst neglect he’s ever seen” from their mother.

Judge Byrne said the two children and their other brothers and sisters grew up in a chaotic and filthy environment, without adequate food and clothing, basic hygiene, medical care, toys or love.

The victims’ mother, whose name cannot be released to protect the identity of her children, was sentenced to 12 years in prison after admitting five counts of child neglect and an additional charge of drug possession with intent to supply. All children have now been taken care of.

The court heard that her complete lack of parental supervision meant Mullin, formerly of Kensington, was able to exploit two of the children while he was a child himself.

He subjected her to horrific sexual abuse, including raping the boy, and was convicted of 10 sex offenses against her.

During the original sentencing, Judge Byrne described Mullin as a “cold and calculated person” who failed to consider the impact of his actions on his victims and showed no remorse for his “wicked deeds.”

He said: “The harm you have done to these children is incalculable. They have caused them physical, emotional, and developmental harm. The damage will last for the rest of her life.”

However, Mullin’s lawyers argued before the Court of Appeal that the boy’s own traumatic upbringing and immaturity were not reflected in the Liverpool verdict.

The presiding judge, Ms. Justice McGowan, allowed the appeal and the statute of limitations expired three years into the sentence.

She said: “The offense in this case was appalling. The consequences for the victims are grave and long-lasting, but we remember very much, as the learned judge did, that this crime was committed by a child who had been brought up in extremely difficult circumstances, whom one himself has the maturity of other 13, 14 or 15 year olds forgot.

“We, like the learned judge, consider all the circumstances which led the judge to conclude that the applicant was dangerous and we concur with that finding. The learned judge took into account the applicant’s age at the time of the offense and his relatively young age at the time of sentencing.

“But we accept the contention that the adjustment made for lack of maturity at the time of the offense and relatively young age at the time of sentencing was not fully reflected in the penalties imposed.”

The Court of Appeal agreed with Judge Byrne that Mullin was a “dangerous” offender under the sentencing statute.

This means he is not eligible for early release until at least two-thirds of the way through prison, and then only if a parole board determines he poses a low enough risk to the public.

Mullin was again sentenced to 10 years in prison and an additional four years in prison. He is also subject to a lifetime injunction to prevent sexual harm.

In sentencing the victims’ mother last October, Judge Byrne said while she did not “participate” in the abuse, her neglect “led” it. He told her, “You were rarely there and instead chose to put your own needs ahead of the children’s.”

He added that her neglect meant Mullin “gained the opportunity to sexually abuse her.” The judge said: “If your argument is that you were not responsible for it, then I reject it.

“I accept that you were unaware of the abuse. But if you had exercised more control…this abuse might not have happened.”

David Polglase, who prosecuted both the mother and Mullin, said authorities and professionals tried to support them.

However, he said a family worker found she was “wise” in “giving the right signals but then not acting on them,” while the judge noted she would “pay lip service but take no action.” .

The court heard that a turning point came when one of their children, a young boy, was “wandering around the street barefoot, without a coat, in cold weather, with wet clothes and a wet diaper.”

Judge Byrne said the only positive thing about the case was that the children were now being cared for by loving, caring foster parents.