[ad_1]
Two Limerick men who murdered a man at a house party using a screwdriver and knife failed to have their convictions overturned on appeal.
Dylan Hayes, 25, with a last address in The Crescent, Kilteragh, Dooradoyle and Gerard Hogan, 37, with a last address in Raheen Square, Ballinacurra Weston were found guilty by a Central Criminal Court jury of the murder of Shane Murphy at The Grove, Pallasgreen on April 30, 2015.
Murphy died of a stab wound to the heart with multiple penetrating wounds to his trunk and upper arms that also contributed to his death.
In May 2017, the trial judge, Judge Patrick McCarthy, imposed mandatory life sentences on both men. During the trial, evidence was revealed that Hayes had confronted Mr. Murphy at a house party in Pallasgreen and asked, “Did you call me a junkie?” Hayes believed the deceased had been talking about him, saying he was using heroin, or “joking” at the Pallasgreen home earlier the same week.
Hayes told gardai that Mr. Murphy responded, “Yes, I did. What are you going to do about it?” It was at this point, according to Hayes’ statements to Gardai, that he went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and returned to the living room, where he began repeatedly stabbing Mr. Murphy in the chest, stomach, arms, and legs. legs.
Deputy State Pathologist Dr. Linda Mulligan said one of the stab wounds went through Murphy’s heart, while others had damaged his lungs and liver. The defensive wounds on his hands suggested that he had tried to protect himself while Hayes wielded the knife.
The prosecution’s case regarding Hogan was that he was involved in a joint venture with Hayes to assassinate Mr. Murphy. A witness at the home said he saw Hogan attack and stab Mr. Murphy with Hayes. He also said that Hogan and Hayes were saying “take it, take it” while “goading” each other.
In pressing their charges, Judge McCarthy told the jury that the defendants could be found guilty of murder if the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they had formed a joint intention to kill or seriously injure Mr. Murphy.
After filing an appeal last May, Hayes’ attorney, Mark Nicholas SC, argued that the judge’s charge for provocation was flawed as the jury did not receive proper instructions.
Mr. Nicholas said that the judge did not provide any explanation to the jurors about the requirement to evaluate the defendants’ actions subjectively, as well as in a clear and usable way.
Hogan’s attorney, Michael Bowman SC, appealed his client’s conviction on various grounds. Bowman said the prosecution had relied on both the words spoken and the actions performed by Hogan, including attacking the deceased with a screwdriver.
The jury held that it was open to the conclusion that Hogan did not stab the deceased, as the pathologist testified that Mr. Murphy’s injuries were caused by a knife and not a screwdriver.
In addition, Mr. Bowman alleged that the trial judge had also rejected a defense request to indict the jury in relation to a party’s ability to withdraw from a common design or joint venture.
In a sentence returned electronically on Monday, the president of the Court of Appeals, Justice George Birmingham, who sat down with Justice Isobel Kennedy and Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh, said nothing of what the trial judge said in relation to with the theme of provocation. be seen as a misinterpretation by the jury and their treatment of the matter was, in the circumstances of the case, adequate.
Judge Birmingham said that when the position of the trial judge was considered as a whole, it did not seem objectionable.
“He repeatedly emphasized that all matters to be proved had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, obviously this included that the words were uttered by Gerard Hogan with the intention of ‘inciting’ the co-defendant and thus this ground of appeal. it fails, “the judge explained.
The president said the three-judge Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that there was insufficient evidence, if any, in the case suggesting a withdrawal from a joint venture that would have required or warranted a charge addressed to this issue. The court considered that the reason for the appeal should be decided, he added.
In summary, Judge Birmingham noted that the three-judge panel had not been persuaded to uphold any grounds for appeal presented by any of the appellants and would consequently dismiss the appeal.
Last May, the lawyer for the director of the Public Ministry (DPP), Orla Crowe SC, argued in her writings that four people present at the house had witnessed the murder and each of them had implicated both appellants in the attack on Mr. Murphy.
One of these witnesses had given very clear evidence at trial of both defendants’ physical and verbal commitment to the deceased, he said, noting that this referred to the common design element of the crime. He added that “science” had not eliminated Hogan from the physical attack on Murphy.
Regarding the charge of provocation, the lawyer said that the trial judge had provided the jury with a very clear outline of the provocation defense and made it very clear that the evidence was subjective. The jurors could not have had any misconceptions regarding the law, he claimed.
Ms. Crowe explained that Mr. Bowman, for Hogan, had suggested that his client had not fully participated in the attack or had withdrawn from it, but said that this had not been confirmed by the witnesses who heard and saw what it was happening in the room at the time.
He stressed that this was a “classic case” of joint venture and common design and that there was no evidence that Hogan had pulled out of the joint venture.
Click here for more Limerick news
[ad_2]