Man appeals sentence for ‘torture’ of woman who was beaten, burned, and threatened with rape

A man jailed for his role in an hours-long torture of a woman has argued a judge was wrong to impose a higher sentence on him on the basis that he was the attack’s main “instigator”.

Braxton Rice (22) and four co-accused 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, was sentenced to 15 years with the final 12 months suspended on strict conditions by Judge Pauline Codd at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in July 2025.

During a three-hour period, Ennis, then 37, was beaten about the head and body with a metal pole, and burned with a makeshift blowtorch and a heated hammer head.

She was also cut with a knife, kicked and punched, had her hair cut off and was threatened with rape.

The men took running jumps at her during the assault in a one-bedroom flat at Henrietta House, threatened to make her drink ammonia, and also threatened to rape her teenage daughter.

The assault ended only when gardaí entered the flat with a search warrant. All five men, who have between one and 124 previous convictions, were on bail at the time of the offence.

Ennis was left with a broken eye socket, broken cheekbone, broken nasal bone, broken elbow, burns, dislocated teeth, bruising and lacerations across her head and scalp, among other injuries.

She required skin grafts and staples to her scalp, and later had surgery to remove a disc in her back.

[ ‘Numb’: Woman’s life ‘changed forever’ after being tortured by five men in a Dublin flatOpens in new window ]

In her victim impact statement, Ennis said: “If police didn’t come in through that door that day, I was sure I was dead.”

She described the men as “animals” and said she would never get “the smell of my skin burning” out of her mind. “I never knew humanity could be so cruel.”

Judge Codd said Rice was the “main ringleader” who acted as “inquisitor” in relation to a false allegation regarding missing drugs, made “vicious threats”, and heated implements which were used to burn the victim.

She said Rice’s level of culpability was within the “exceptional level” for the offence of false imprisonment, and that he used “sadistic torture and threats” against the “defenceless woman”.

Judge Codd said the context of the offending “highlights the degree to which normal humanity and decency are absent” in the drug trade.

Judge Codd said the context of the offending “highlights the degree to which normal humanity and decency are absent” in the drug trade.

She noted that the aggravating features of the case included the violation of the woman’s rights to liberty and bodily integrity, the serious injuries sustained, the premeditated nature of the offending and the “deliberate targeting” of Ennis, whom the judge said was “vulnerable”.

The judge said the offending took place in the context of other criminal activity, namely “enforcement” in relation to the alleged loss of drugs, and that all the men were on bail at the time.

The Court of Appeal on Friday viewed short video segments taken in the flat on mobile phones on the day Ennis was attacked, showing the victim in distress with blood on her head. Ennis was present for the hearing.

One clip also showed a hammer and a knife being heated on a hob.

In launching an appeal against the sentence, Fionnuala O’Sullivan, representing Rice, said the sentencing judge made an error regarding culpability by finding that Rice was the “the main ringleader or instigator” and imposing a “significantly higher” headline sentence for him on that basis.

She said all the men had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment on a joint enterprise basis. She noted the injured party had referred to the men acting “collectively” and “as a group”.

[ Torture of woman by group of men in Dublin flat involved ‘truly barbaric’ violence, says judgeOpens in new window ]

Counsel said Ennis had described different assaults by different individuals and also referred to having what she described as “their boss” on the phone telling the men to strip her and get her into the bedroom.

She contended that because her client was identified as the “baby-faced one”, he was “singled out” by the judge even though the others were involved in the violence.

“There wasn’t the evidence for the sentencing judge to nominate the appellant as the ringleader,” the barrister said.

She also argued the headline sentence of 20 years set by the judge was excessive.

Counsel said to suggest this incident was “so egregious” as to merit a 20-year headline sentence was “substantially out of kilter” with other similar false imprisonment cases.

O’Sullivan said she accepted the offending fell into the exceptional category but said the 20-year term nominated in Rice’s case was an error in principle.

She referred to a number of comparator cases which she said involved egregious violence and longer terms of false imprisonment, but where headline sentences of between 14 and 16 years were fixed.

O’Sullivan said the judge reduced the headline sentence by 25 per cent after considering Rice’s guilty plea, but didn’t appear to take into account any other mitigating factors, including his young age and difficult background.

In response, Caroline Cummings, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said the judge had made no error in the sentence imposed.

“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.

She said this case was “truly out of the ordinary”, involving a “premeditated, serious assault” by a group of men on a vulnerable lone female using various implements and multiple methods of torture, as well as threats “of the most odious kind” to her and her family.

Cummings said it would be “hard to think of a way in which this case could have been more serious”.

Nuala Butler said the court would reserve judgment in the case.