When Paul Carney has something to say, people sit up and take notice. He is the senior judge in the Central Criminal Court, highly competent and afforded much respect, which he has earned. He is a man with plenty of opinions and always worth a listen.

He generates headlines, and would appear to revel in the newsprint which casts him in a favourable light. Equally, he gives the impression of being highly sensitive about coverage which he feels does him an injustice.

He has been at the centre of a number of controversies, many of which unfairly cast him in a poor light. Last week, another one boomeranged its way back to him. This one didn't generate huge headlines, but was of more import than any of the others. Effectively, he was rebuked from on high, told that he had lost the run of himself, and in doing so, had cocked up a murder trial.

For a man of Carney's standing, it was about as severe a dressing down as he could get. This time, he wasn't castigated in the media. But the nature of the criticism from his other bugbear, the Court of Criminal Appeal, must have left him reeling.

On Wednesday, the court, presided over by the chief justice John Murray, delivered its reasons for allowing an appeal against a murder conviction of two brothers, Warren and Jeffrey Dumbrell. Murray's presence on the court was a reflection of the seriousness of the matter. The Dumbrells had been convicted in June 2008 of the murder of Christoper Cawley in October 2006. The deceased had been stabbed to death. Carney presided over the trial.

Murray and his two fellow judges found that the Dumbrells were entitled to a retrial because the jury at the original trial should have been discharged, following serious publicity about a speech Carney gave during the trial. The judge had addressed a gathering in University College Cork and commented extensively on knife killings, victims and sentencing.

He made no reference to the trial over which he was presiding, but he used the opportunity to lambast the appeal court, the decisions of which have long caused him discomfort.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the address endorsed claims such as: "sentences in fatal stabbing cases, other than murder, do not do justice to the victims or their families"; and "manslaughter sentences are a major source of the grievances of victims and their families in contrast to the mandatory murder sentence of life".

The court found that these claims and other factors could give rise to a fear of bias among jury members.

"Juries must be permitted to arrive at their verdict in a criminal trial without influence from extraneous and prejudicial material," the CCA ruled. "Strong and trenchant statements that manslaughter verdicts allegedly do not result in justice for the victims, their families or society is such prejudicial material."

Most controversial case

The outcome of the Dumbrell case is in sharp contrast to that of Carney's most controversial case, the murder trial of Wayne O'Donoghue in December 2005. O'Donoghue was found guilty of the manslaughter of 11-year-old Robert Holohan. At the sentencing hearing the following month, the deceased's mother, Majella, departed from her Victim Impact Statement and made a number of allegations, framed as questions, against O'Donoghue. Carney sentenced the convicted man to four years.

He had conducted the trial in an exemplary manner, and the sentence would in time be confirmed by the appeal court. Yet because of the controversy generated by Majella Holohan, the judge was widely criticised in the media, particularly the tabloids.

"A pathetic sentence," one spat. "Punishment does not fit crime," another thundered. The song remained the same for days. The system was cast as dysfunctionally in favour of defendants like O'Donoghue, and Carney was portrayed as displaying no empathy whatsoever with the victim.

The portrayal was particularly unfair to Carney. Of all the criminal court judges, he has shown himself to be the most empathetic to the plight of victims. For a man who is quite obviously sensitive of his media image, it must have been a tough time.

He got his chance to deliver retribution some 21 months later in October 2007. At his annual address to the UCC Law Society, Carney made serious waves. He notified the media about what he was going to deliver. Curiously, the speech he did deliver was toned down from the version earlier circulated.

In any event, he let fly at the Court of Criminal Appeal, the media and Majella Holohan.

"Nobody would have wished to add to the grief of the victims but they were given an iconic status by the media, in particular the tabloids," he said. "The victim was acting under the influence of obsessive grief. The tabloid press do not have this excuse."

The CCA got it in the neck.

"For my part, I never cease to be amazed that when the Court of Criminal Appeal wholly suspends a custodial sentence for rape… there isn't a peep out of anybody, but when I then follow their guidance, as I am obliged to do, the heavens fall in."

The occasion served as his own Victim Impact Statement, outlining how he had felt bruised by the whole affair.

More negative press followed. 'Justice Carney's intervention is ill-judged and inaccurate' read the headline in The Irish Times op-ed page. There was similar coverage elsewhere, with Majella Holohan saying she was "offended and hurt" by the remarks.

By the time his next jaunt to UCC came around, the judge was singing from a different hymn sheet. On 10 June 2008, on the evening of day five of the Dumbrell trial, media outlets received copies of his speech, and RTÉ was alerted. TV cameras were in place for the arrival of the judge at UCC.

The content of his speech was the stuff tabloids die for. "One of the greatest grievances of victims is the level of sentences imposed by the courts in respect of the taking of human life," he began. This immediately introduced the notion of victim-led justice, a populist theme of elements of the media, and, when it is expedient, of politics also.

He went on to quote Joan Deane, one of the founders of the victims of homicide group Advic. This was in sharp contrast to his portrayal of another victim – Majella Holohan – at the same location nine months earlier.

"Mrs Deane makes two very strong statements which deserve to be treated with the greatest respect. She says that the courts are disconnected from the public they serve and that sentencing judges are being rendered powerless in their courts by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Had she been aware of it she might have mentioned that it is more and more the case that appellate judges never had the responsibility of conducting a criminal trial themselves."

He noted that probably most members of Advic had "lost their loved ones through a fatal stabbing" and such cases "have increased exponentially in number".

In fact, in 2008 there were 15 knife killings, compared to 36 in 2007, and 18 in 2006. Knife killings have fluctuated wildly in recent years, but have hardly increased exponentially.

He referenced three cases to illustrate where the CCA reduced sentences. As it turned out, in one of these cases, the CCA didn't reduce the sentence, but applied different guidelines.

'Lacking balance'

In last week's ruling, Murray and the other two judges said Carney's speech "contained errors and lacked a balance in the presentation of alleged deficiencies in sentencing in manslaughter cases, even though it may also have reflected concern that exists among the public from time to time concerning a sentence imposed in a particular case".

In effect, they were accusing Carney of exactly that which he had accused elements of the media – taking things out of context, giving an unbalanced picture of the criminal justice system, being wrong. Through his words he had positioned himself at the shoulder of the tabloids, pointing a finger of blame at the system. For the most senior criminal court judge in the country, it was an extraordinary place to find himself.

When the trial resumed the day after the speech, counsel for the Dumbrells applied to have the jury discharged on the basis of the publicity, pointing out that the speech "could be construed by reasonable members of the jury as indicating that a manslaughter verdict is insufficient in a trial of this nature because it attracts too light a penalty under the supervision of the Court of Criminal Appeal".

Carney replied: "I anticipated this application would be made which I regard as totally opportunistic." That he anticipated the application suggests that he must have been aware of the dangers of what he was doing the previous evening.

He dismissed the application, but the CCA agreed with the defence counsel and ordered a retrial. It was a stinging verdict on the conduct of a judge of Carney's experience.

The pity is that the essence of his criticisms of the appeal court have validity, but the Dumbrell case may have fatally compromised his credibility in voicing these matters. Consistency in sentencing is required if the system is to retain public confidence. The appeal court is a transient station, drawing its members from the High and Supreme courts. A permanent court would provide some consistency.

Carney's observation about few if any of the appellate judges having presided over criminal trials is also entirely valid, particularly when it comes to sentencing. In a society that has become more violent, any widening of the gap between the street and the ivory tower does little for confidence in the administration of justice.

Without some reform, the strains between the most senior criminal court judge and the appeal court look set to continue. One other recent case illustrates the tensions, the egos, and what can be at stake.

In November 2007, the CCA reduced a sentence of a convicted rapist David Mullen from Knockmore Crescent, Tallaght from 15 years, with 18 months suspended, to 14 years, three suspended. Effectively, the sentence was reduced by a quarter, from 13½ years to 10. Mullen had pleaded guilty to false imprisonment, rape, oral rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery of a credit card and threatening his victim, a 23-year-old Spanish au pair.

The appeal was based on comments Carney made at the sentencing hearing. He had stated that the case was "too important to rush because the DPP wants to do it on the cheap"; and he said he was the person who "is attacked behind my back in another place"; and that defence counsel had "persuaded the Court of Criminal Appeal to make some exotic findings in relation to me [Carney]".

The CCA found that Carney's comments rendered his sentencing erroneous. The presiding appeal court judge, Adrian Hardiman, said that Carney's comments were "simply indefensible… irrelevant, inappropriate and personalised." He said the appeal court was entitled to respect, just as Carney's court was.

On such matters was the sentence of a violent rapist reduced by a quarter. Sometimes, despite his erratic volubility and weakness for the limelight, it's easy to see exactly where Carney is coming from.