A 22-year-old man sentenced to 15 years in prison for his involvement in the prolonged torture of a woman in Dublin has challenged the punishment at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge wrongly identified him as the principal instigator of the attack and imposed a harsher sentence on that basis.
Braxton Rice and four other men pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and assault causing harm to Natalie Ennis at Henrietta House, Dublin 7, on September 26th, 2024. Rice, who has 12 previous convictions, including drug dealing and possession offences, was sentenced by Judge Pauline Codd at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in July 2025. His 15-year sentence included the suspension of its final 12 months under strict conditions.
The attack lasted approximately three hours, during which Ennis, who was 37 at the time, suffered sustained physical violence inside a one-bedroom apartment. She was repeatedly struck on the head and body with a metal pole, burned with a makeshift blowtorch and a heated hammer head, and cut with a knife. Her attackers also kicked and punched her, forcibly cut her hair and threatened to rape her.
The men reportedly took running jumps at the woman during the assault. They also threatened to make her drink ammonia and threatened to rape her teenage daughter. The ordeal ended when gardaí entered the apartment with a search warrant. All five defendants were on bail when the incident occurred, with their previous convictions ranging from one to 124.
Ennis sustained multiple serious injuries, including fractures to her eye socket, cheekbone, nasal bone and elbow. She also suffered burns, dislocated teeth, extensive bruising and lacerations to her head and scalp. Her treatment required skin grafts and staples to her scalp, while she subsequently underwent surgery to remove a disc in her back.
In her victim impact statement, Ennis described the attack as an experience that left her fearing for her life. She told the court: “If police didn’t come in through that door that day, I was sure I was dead.”
She referred to the attackers as “animals” and said the memory of the assault, particularly the smell of her burning skin, would remain with her. “I never knew humanity could be so cruel.”
During the original sentencing, Judge Codd described Rice as the “main ringleader”, saying he acted as an “inquisitor” over allegations concerning missing drugs. The judge also found that he issued “vicious threats” and heated the implements used to burn the victim.
Judge Codd placed Rice’s culpability within the “exceptional level” for the offence of false imprisonment, stating that he subjected a “defenceless woman” to “sadistic torture and threats”.
The judge further condemned the circumstances surrounding the crime, saying the context of the offending “highlights the degree to which normal humanity and decency are absent” in the drug trade.
She identified several aggravating factors, including the violation of Ennis’s liberty and bodily integrity, the seriousness of her injuries, the premeditated nature of the attack and what she described as the “deliberate targeting” of a “vulnerable” woman.
The court also heard that the assault occurred as part of criminal “enforcement” connected to the alleged disappearance of drugs. The fact that all five men were on bail at the time was another factor considered during sentencing.
At the Court of Appeal on Friday, judges viewed short video recordings captured on mobile phones inside the apartment on the day of the attack. The footage showed Ennis distressed and with blood on her head. She was present during the hearing. One of the recordings also showed a hammer and knife being heated on a hob.
Challenging the sentence, Fionnuala O’Sullivan, counsel for Rice, argued that the sentencing judge had wrongly determined that her client was the “the main ringleader or instigator” of the attack. She submitted that this assessment of his culpability resulted in a “significantly higher” headline sentence.
O’Sullivan told the court that all five defendants had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment on a joint enterprise basis. She argued that Ennis’s account described the perpetrators acting “collectively” and “as a group”, rather than establishing Rice as the sole individual directing the assault.
The barrister also highlighted the victim’s description of different acts of violence being carried out by different members of the group. She referred to Ennis’s account of a telephone conversation involving someone she described as “their boss”, who allegedly instructed the men to strip her and take her into the bedroom.
According to counsel, Rice was identified as the “baby-faced one” and subsequently singled out by the sentencing judge, despite the involvement of the other defendants in the violence.
“There wasn’t the evidence for the sentencing judge to nominate the appellant as the ringleader,” the barrister said.
O’Sullivan also argued that the 20-year headline sentence fixed by the trial judge was excessive when compared with punishments imposed in similar false imprisonment cases.
She submitted that treating the incident as “so egregious” as to justify a 20-year starting sentence was “substantially out of kilter” with other cases involving comparable offences.
Although she accepted that the crime fell within the exceptional category of seriousness, O’Sullivan maintained that the decision to impose a 20-year headline term amounted to an error in principle.
She cited several comparable cases involving serious violence and prolonged false imprisonment in which headline sentences of between 14 and 16 years had been imposed.
The barrister further argued that the sentencing judge reduced Rice’s headline sentence by 25 per cent to account for his guilty plea but did not appear to give sufficient consideration to other mitigating circumstances, including his young age and difficult background.
Opposing the appeal, Caroline Cummings, representing the Director of Public Prosecutions, maintained that the trial judge had followed the correct sentencing principles and imposed an appropriate punishment.
“The sentencing judge nominated a headline sentence taking into consideration the aggravating factors, the culpability and the harm done, discounted for mitigation, and arrived at what was a proportionate sentence in respect of this particular offender,” the barrister said.
Cummings described the case as “truly out of the ordinary”, arguing that it involved a premeditated and serious attack by several men against a vulnerable woman who was alone.
She highlighted the use of multiple implements and different methods of torture, alongside threats “of the most odious kind” directed at Ennis and her family.
Defending the sentence, the prosecution argued that the circumstances represented an exceptionally serious example of false imprisonment.
Cummings said it would be “hard to think of a way in which this case could have been more serious”.
Following submissions from both sides, Nuala Butler said the Court of Appeal would reserve judgment in the case.
