DPP to drop Laide manslaughter case

besty

DPP preparing to abandon Laide manslaughter case

The DPP will enter a nolle prosequi when the manslaughter case against Dermot Laide opens before Judge Frank O'Donnell in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court this morning. This means the retrial will not go ahead. Carol Coulter and Alison Healy report.

Mr Laide (23), Rossvale, Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, was due to stand trial for the manslaughter of Brian Murphy (18) outside Anabel's nightclub at the Burlington Hotel, Dublin on August 31st, 2000.

In March 2004, he was convicted of violent disorder and received a two-year prison sentence. Mr Laide also received a four-year sentence for manslaughter but the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the manslaughter conviction in February 2005 and directed a retrial on that charge. It upheld the conviction for violent disorder.

He completed his prison sentence last autumn. He was one of four people originally charged in connection with the student's death. Seán Mackey, South Park, Foxrock, Dublin, also received a two- year sentence for violent disorder and was released last September.

Desmond Ryan, Cunningham Road, Dalkey, Dublin was given a nine-month sentence for violent disorder but this was later overturned. Andrew Frame was acquitted on direction of the trial judge.

Lawyers for Mr Laide were informed on Friday night of the DPP's decision. It is understood that members of the investigating Garda team informed the Murphy family also on Friday night.

One of the reasons advanced for the decision not to proceed with the prosecution was the illness of the former State Pathologist, Prof John Harbison. However, it is understood that Mr Laide's legal team were prepared to accept his evidence being read into the record of the trial.

Asked to comment on RTÉ yesterday on the DPP's decision, Minister for Justice Michael McDowell said that the DPP was absolutely independent in the exercise of his duties. "I have no hand, act or part in his decisions," he said.

However, he added that it had been reported that a reason for the decision was the ill health of one of the witnesses.

"I would say it is a worry on my part we don't have a well-worked out system of depositions," he said. "I know there are questions concerning the right of the accused to cross-examine, but if there is a witness with crucial evidence like the results of an autopsy, and he may fall under a bus or something, should we not have that evidence?"
_________________________________________________________________

What does everyone think of this?

Thirdfox

Can the family take a private prosecution? Or would this interfere with double jeopardy?

dermot_sheehan

Thirdfox wrote:

Can the family take a private prosecution? Or would this interfere with double jeopardy?

No double jeopardy with a nolle prosequi, but constitutional protection against undue delay might kick in now. Family could only take a summary prosecution and manslaughter is tried on indictment. Also costs plus fact same hurdle is there, main forensic witness is ill.

Riamfada

Its a complete disgrace that that man didnt go to trial for what he did (or didnt do as the case may be) . Im actaully so angry I shouldnt rant .


Marie Cassidy states that he may have died without the blows given by Laide but Laid still kicked a mna twice on the ground and that man later died. Its very fishy to me.

Hobart

It was also stated that Brian had consumed quite a lot of drink on the night in question. We apear to have two very differing views on what exactly the cause of this young mans death could have been.

On the one hand we have a situation where an ex-servant of the state prodcues a report which suggests that Brian's injuries where consistent with a sustained and brutal attack. The current incumbent seems to disagree with that analysis. We also have a situation whereby Dr Harbisson admits that he never considered alchohol as a contributing factor in the death of Brian, again Dr Marie Cassidy disagrees.

For me, it's situations like this, wherby a cloud of uncertainty has been cast of the workings of our legal system, that the DPP should step up to the mark and fully explain his decisions.

thebaz

its taken about 6 years for one of the most publicised murder cases in the states history to be completed and yet nothing is resolved - 150 interviews and no hard evidence - if it was my son i would be pissed - what justice did the Murphy family get - zero - shame on those Blackrock boys responsible and also those who saw nothing ...

Hobart

I agree, it is frustrating. I don't think it was ever a murder case though, sorry for being pedantic.

We must also bear in mind the media circus within which this trial has been reported.

As far as I can see there is a lot our legal entities have to answer here. I do not blame the DPP for taking the original manslaughter case against Laide, as it would have been largely based on the evidence of the State Pathologist. Evidence, as has come to light today, which was questionable.

Laide has served his sentence for violent disorder, and is now a free citizen. However, he may have been re-convicted on the basis of erroreous evidence, where it not for the prudence of the current State Pathologist.

A lot of questions will remain unanswered for the parents of Brian, and more have been raised today. I am just thankful that this tragedy was not compounded by an incorrect prosecution of an event that might never have happened.

dermot_sheehan

Hobart wrote:

It was also stated that Brian had consumed quite a lot of drink on the night in question. We apear to have two very differing views on what exactly the cause of this young mans death could have been.

On the one hand we have a situation where an ex-servant of the state prodcues a report which suggests that Brian's injuries where consistent with a sustained and brutal attack. The current incumbent seems to disagree with that analysis. We also have a situation whereby Dr Harbisson admits that he never considered alchohol as a contributing factor in the death of Brian, again Dr Marie Cassidy disagrees.

For me, it's situations like this, wherby a cloud of uncertainty has been cast of the workings of our legal system, that the DPP should step up to the mark and fully explain his decisions.

I was wondering about the Cassidy's evidence and whether it would even have been relevent. Can't the state convict based on the doctrine of common design, if you were part of a mob that killed him and you had a common design to kill him, you could be convicted based on the fact it was a joint-enterprise.

And just to declare something, I went to the defendent's school but was in a different year.

dermot_sheehan

Hobart wrote:

It was also stated that Brian had consumed quite a lot of drink on the night in question. We apear to have two very differing views on what exactly the cause of this young mans death could have been.

On the one hand we have a situation where an ex-servant of the state prodcues a report which suggests that Brian's injuries where consistent with a sustained and brutal attack. The current incumbent seems to disagree with that analysis. We also have a situation whereby Dr Harbisson admits that he never considered alchohol as a contributing factor in the death of Brian, again Dr Marie Cassidy disagrees.

For me, it's situations like this, wherby a cloud of uncertainty has been cast of the workings of our legal system, that the DPP should step up to the mark and fully explain his decisions.

But the fact that Murphy had consumed alcohol seems irrelevent. Egg shell skull rule, you take your victims as you find them, you engage in an assault on someone who is vulnerable due to alcohol intake, you're still liable for their death, also even if she had a different theory as to cause of death, unless it was not caused by the assault (in some shape or form) if it's a reasonably foreseable result of the actions you engaged in and there was no novus actus intervenes, you're liable.

maidhc

I find it disturbing that so many people want Laide to be tried whether there is ample evidence or not. This is exactly the sort of attitude that got us the Gilford 4 and Bermingham 6.

A criminal trial doesnt really concern itself with "justice for the family", it is an issue between the state and the perp. The possibility is Laide didn't deliver the mortal blows, and hence thats that.

Hobart

gabhain7 wrote:

I was wondering about the Cassidy's evidence and whether it would even have been relevent. Can't the state convict based on the doctrine of common design, if you were part of a mob that killed him and you had a common design to kill him, you could be convicted based on the fact it was a joint-enterprise.

It would have been relevent, as the cause of Brian's death would have been relevant. Laide's original conviction for manslaughter was overturned because a statement given by Sean Mackey (one of the other defendants) was 'edited' in such a manner as to give the impression that Laide had kicked Brian in the head. This was a very important part of the evidence, as Dr Harbison had given his opinion, that Brian's injuries where most probably caused by Brian's head been struck by a shoe or boot.

There had been no witness evidence to support this theory, and therfore it could not be proven that Laide had kicked Brian in the head.

If you then have a situation, where upon re-examination of the relevant notes and photographs, the current imcumbent of the SP's office disagrees almost entirely with the key points of evidence given by the previous SP in the original trial, how can you expect the state to proceed with a prosecution?

thebaz

The most worring thing to me was the silence of those interviewed . We are now back to trial by media, not trial by court. The word in the media is that there was a Mr. X , not Laide, who dealt the fatal blow , and for some reason can't be tried ... maybe cause of the code of silence . I have some sympathy for Laide, as i feal he has done his bird, for his part , and don't believe he was the actual killer.

EducatedGuess

Does anybody feel that if these accused were 4 men from Tallaght [example only] the outcome would have been different. At the start of the case not one of the accused were transported wearing handcuffs, and guess which one was the only one to have a free legal aid? Just posing questions no views.

hepcat

EducatedGuess wrote:

Does anybody feel that if these accused were 4 men from Tallaght [example only] the outcome would have been different. At the start of the case not one of the accused were transported wearing handcuffs, and guess which one was the only one to have a free legal aid? Just posing questions no views.

I don't know, but presume from the way you have phrased your remarks, that Laide had Free Legal Aid. Laide's defence has said the reason the Nolle Prosequi was entered was because of the new statement from Dr Cassidy, so conversely his conviction must have had a lot to do with the evidence of the former State Pathologist, Dr Harbison, and not simply because he had free legal aid.

It is impossilbe to tell what the outcome would have been were the four arrested people from a less privileged background. Perhaps there would have been little public and media interest if the victim was also from an under-privileged background?

Eru

EducatedGuess wrote:

Does anybody feel that if these accused were 4 men from Tallaght [example only] the outcome would have been different. At the start of the case not one of the accused were transported wearing handcuffs, and guess which one was the only one to have a free legal aid? Just posing questions no views.

FYI, most people dont have handcuffs on when transported unless they are serving sentences for other offences, these people were not and as a result handcuffs were not used. People are rarely produced to the court in handcuffs either so I dont really see your point. Also, he could have afforded his own legal costs if he had really needed to, he wasnt a homeless bum. In fact most legal aid applications are from people who simple dont weant to spend cash when they can get perfectly good cover free, look at Mr Hannahoe.

bax wrote:

The most worring thing to me was the silence of those interviewed . We are now back to trial by media, not trial by court. The word in the media is that there was a Mr. X , not Laide, who dealt the fatal blow , and for some reason can't be tried ... maybe cause of the code of silence . I have some sympathy for Laide, as i feal he has done his bird, for his part , and don't believe he was the actual killer.

The fact that the people prosecuted wouldnt name the supposed Mr X is the only silence part that is of worry. Knowing the papers like I do I do not believe for a minute that theres anything sinister about this case and in fact, I doubt the papers have anything to basde the story on. Remember its not long ago a well known paper made up a story about a crime that never took place purely to fill space at short notice.

maidhc wrote:

I find it disturbing that so many people want Laide to be tried whether there is ample evidence or not. This is exactly the sort of attitude that got us the Gilford 4 and Bermingham 6.

I agree fully. The Balckstone theory is extrememly important and should not be trodden on just for a result.

I also dont like the angle that the papers took. the simple reality is that all parties were as guilty as eachother. There was a fight in a nightclub between 2 sets over a woman (bloody women!!!) and afterwards 1 person from set A found himself isolated and outnumbered by people from set B and hence the tragedy took place. Now Im not for one minute suggesting that he deserved what happened but personally I dont believe that A, the parties prosecuted genuinely intended this too happen and B, that it could easily have been the other way around.

thebaz

I also dont like the angle that the papers took. the simple reality is that all parties were as guilty as eachother. There was a fight in a nightclub between 2 sets over a woman (bloody women!!!) and afterwards 1 person from set A found himself isolated and outnumbered by people from set B and hence the tragedy took place. Now Im not for one minute suggesting that he deserved what happened but personally I dont believe that A, the parties prosecuted genuinely intended this too happen and B, that it could easily have been the other way around.[/QUOTE]


How was Murphy's party as guilty , as the Blackrock gang ? Yes he probably threw a few puches ,probably started initial hassle, but is that the same as a pack of 4 kicking someone to death as he lays on the ground . If Murphy was related to you , would you think there was justice , or both parties were equally guilty ? i know there was alcohol involved , and no one intentionally set out to kill, but you got be responsible for your actions.

The_Minister

bax wrote:

The most worring thing to me was the silence of those interviewed . We are now back to trial by media, not trial by court. The word in the media is that there was a Mr. X , not Laide, who dealt the fatal blow , and for some reason can't be tried ... maybe cause of the code of silence . I have some sympathy for Laide, as i feal he has done his bird, for his part , and don't believe he was the actual killer.

Mr X is in Australia right now and they don't have enough to extradite him

TheMonster

Surely if the presnt state pathologist differs in opinion from the one in place at the time a 3rd view needs to be sought or does the present supercede any past evidence. Whos to say which is right or wrong.

Our man in Havana

I would like to know if they could/should have brought in a 3rd independant opinion say from the UK?

Thirdfox

bax wrote:

How was Murphy's party as guilty , as the Blackrock gang ? Yes he probably threw a few puches ,probably started initial hassle, but is that the same as a pack of 4 kicking someone to death as he lays on the ground . If Murphy was related to you , would you think there was justice , or both parties were equally guilty ? i know there was alcohol involved , and no one intentionally set out to kill, but you got be responsible for your actions.

Those would be crimes of strict liability i.e. no mens rea is required for the crime to be committed. However most crimes need both mens rea and actus reus (commonly known as the mental and physical elements). Being responsible for your actions is one thing but to be charged with manslaughter (?) as in this case then you need to show recklessness, if the DPP don't think they have enough evidence to prove that then they'll have to drop the case unfortunately.

Eru

bax wrote:

How was Murphy's party as guilty , as the Blackrock gang ? Yes he probably threw a few puches ,probably started initial hassle, but is that the same as a pack of 4 kicking someone to death as he lays on the ground . If Murphy was related to you , would you think there was justice , or both parties were equally guilty ? i know there was alcohol involved , and no one intentionally set out to kill, but you got be responsible for your actions.

Actually they were all guilty of an offence under Section ^, POA 94 so thats equal guilt.

Moving on, my point was that Murphy was not this nicer than nice angel walking around with a halo above his head as people would try to make out. he was in a fight that he started as far as I am aware so the whole incident was by his hand. Did he deserve what happened? No. Do you think those covicted planned it or wanted it? No. Do I think all involved regretted it? Yes.

Thats my point, be fair to all sides. Look at the real picture not what the media spins.

As for Mr X, I see comments without any proof, judges son, Australia, protected, blah blah blah. All **** if you ask me.

Edit to add: Third make a good point.

thebaz

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Actually they were all guilty of an offence under Section ^, POA 94 so thats equal guilt.

Moving on, my point was that Murphy was not this nicer than nice angel walking around with a halo above his head as people would try to make out. he was in a fight that he started as far as I am aware so the whole incident was by his hand. Did he deserve what happened? No. Do you think those covicted planned it or wanted it? No. Do I think all involved regretted it? Yes.

Thats my point, be fair to all sides. Look at the real picture not what the media spins.

As for Mr X, I see comments without any proof, judges son, Australia, protected, blah blah blah. All **** if you ask me.

Edit to add: Third make a good point.

i did say he probably started row, and that no one set out to kill anyone; aparently he was much smaller than others, and for 4 bigger guys to kick him unconscious , leading to his death , and then the case to collapse so spectacularly with loads of unanswered questions , is a sad reflection of our state, and those responsible . Because of the silence of all those present , the collapse of the case , society will never know what happened, and the speculation will grow. although I didn't hear the one about the judges son , i'm sure the sunday world will be on to it. The media have much more interest in a middle class killing , because society expect Blackrock boys to behave better and more honourable than the less fortunate who attend public schooling .

jd

Hobart wrote:

As far as I can see there is a lot our legal entities have to answer here. I do not blame the DPP for taking the original manslaughter case against Laide, as it would have been largely based on the evidence of the State Pathologist. Evidence, as has come to light today, which was questionable.

Prof Cassidy gave pathological evidence based on photographs instead. In that case, Mr Justice Barry White said Dr Harbison's inability to give evidence was "perhaps to his (Horgan's) benefit" and that Prof Cassidy's evidence was "less forceful".

Ms Cassidy could only give an interpretation of photographic evidence, and any interpretation of Dr. Harbison's notes of the pathological examination would have been challenged as hearsay. Dr Harbison is not medically fit to be cross examined...

TBH from a scientific point of view I would have more confidence in evidence based on a pathological examination rather than an examination of photographs, but Legal process has to be followed..

Hobart

jd wrote:

Ms Cassidy could only give an interpretation of photographic evidence, and any interpretation of Dr. Harbison's notes of the pathological examination would have been challenged as hearsay. Dr Harbison is not medically fit to be cross examined...

TBH from a scientific point of view I would have more confidence in evidence based on a pathological examination rather than an examination of photographs, but Legal process has to be followed..

Could she not have given her opinion on the medical evidence from the post mortem? I understand the term notes to mean and personal backup that Dr Harbison relied upon to support the evidence he would have submitted to the Gardai, in order for the preparion of a file for presentation to the DPP.

Eru

Hobart wrote:

Could she not have given her opinion on the medical evidence from the post mortem? I understand the term notes to mean and personal backup that Dr Harbison relied upon to support the evidence he would have submitted to the Gardai, in order for the preparion of a file for presentation to the DPP.

yes but the fact is she could not perform her own post mortem so its hearsay evidence. Using your own notes is only to refresh your memory.

jd

Hobart wrote:

Could she not have given her opinion on the medical evidence from the post mortem? I understand the term notes to mean and personal backup that Dr Harbison relied upon to support the evidence he would have submitted to the Gardai, in order for the preparion of a file for presentation to the DPP.

The notes would be hearsay. Eg- there was a bruise at xxx. If she used the notes it would be hearsay as she didn't see the bruise herself.

Hobart

Ah...ok. But she could make a deduction on, for example, the amount of alcohol found in Brian's blood etc... the documented medical facts, based on the PM?

She could not deduce from a photograph whether a bruise of his face was caused by a shoe or boot, because she did not get to examine Brian's body. Her opinion, in that case, would be hearsay, and inadmissable?

I presume both the above are correct?

Where do so called "expert witnesses" come into all this (the law as opposed to Laide's case). Must all evidence be examined by all witnesses before they are allowed have an opinion on it? Is there any scope for people relying on their experience, when dealing with similar instances?

dermot_sheehan

Hobart wrote:

Ah...ok. But she could make a deduction on, for example, the amount of alcohol found in Brian's blood etc... the documented medical facts, based on the PM?

She could not deduce from a photograph whether a bruise of his face was caused by a shoe or boot, because she did not get to examine Brian's body. Her opinion, in that case, would be hearsay, and inadmissable?

I presume both the above are correct?

Where do so called "expert witnesses" come into all this (the law as opposed to Laide's case). Must all evidence be examined by all witnesses before they are allowed have an opinion on it? Is there any scope for people relying on their experience, when dealing with similar instances?

Expert opinion evidence one of the exceptions to the hersay rule, but it would still be heresey to make an assertion of fact of something you did not witness yourself. (There are of course the other exceptions, res gestae, dying declarations, historic documents etc)

e.g. bruise was found in X location
How do you know this?
From examining the notes of another pathologist

This would be rejected as hearsay whilst:

In my professional opinion from my experience and my training bruises of this sort are typically caused by blunt force traume

This would not be hearsay.

EducatedGuess

Some prisoners [detainees] are transported to court if they are threat to the prison staff escorting them, but I do concede this is rare, the handcuffs are then taken off in the holding cells, handcuffs dont help innocent until proven guilty. Just to clarify a point on free legal aid, Free Legal Aid is based on a means test, the majority of people who apply maybe able to afford it, but they don't get it. No he wasn't a homeless bum but he was a student. He is an adult, his parents refused to pay legal costs on principle [an alledged offence that thier son carried out]. However I completely agree with Karlitosway trial by media existed much more in this case than trial by jury.

Hacketry

Justice is supposed to be administered in public. Does that mean just in the courts? Or should the pursuit of justice begin with the persons who may have witnessed a (well-publicised) crime? People saw the beginnings, durings, and afters of this beating on the street. From an outsider's perspective, there is a lot of "look the other way" in Dublin, noticeably-so in some of the more salubrious quarters. The seemingly spontaneoes omerta of possible perps and witnesses in the kicking to death of a young man is an injustice more insidious than any conspiracy.

Eru

Hacketry wrote:

Justice is supposed to be administered in public. Does that mean just in the courts? Or should the pursuit of justice begin with the persons who may have witnessed a (well-publicised) crime? People saw the beginnings, durings, and afters of this beating on the street. From an outsider's perspective, there is a lot of "look the other way" in Dublin, noticeably-so in some of the more salubrious quarters. The seemingly spontaneoes omerta of possible perps and witnesses in the kicking to death of a young man is an injustice more insidious than any conspiracy.

I agree completely, I once had at least 20 people at a bus stop claim they didnt witness an assualt that happened AT THE BUS STOP! :eek: Luckily I witnessed the last punch so it didnt matter.

EducatedGuess wrote:

Some prisoners [detainees] are transported to court if they are threat to the prison staff escorting them, but I do concede this is rare, the handcuffs are then taken off in the holding cells, handcuffs dont help innocent until proven guilty. Just to clarify a point on free legal aid, Free Legal Aid is based on a means test, the majority of people who apply maybe able to afford it, but they don't get it. No he wasn't a homeless bum but he was a student. He is an adult, his parents refused to pay legal costs on principle [an alledged offence that thier son carried out]. However I completely agree with Karlitosway trial by media existed much more in this case than trial by jury.

OK have too take issue, first off the jury and judge dont see handcuffs so your innocence is safe and secondly, Gilligan qualified for legal aid. It is not checked or means tested in any way shape or form, its purely in the hands of the judge. "This is purely a discretionary matter for each court and is not governed by any financial eligibility guidelines" (http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A21A5/vWeb/pcJUSQ5XNLN4-en)

As for not paying legal aid, well thats not very nice on their part, obviously his freedom wasnt as important as they like to claim.

Snickers Man

maidhc wrote:

I find it disturbing that so many people want Laide to be tried whether there is ample evidence or not. This is exactly the sort of attitude that got us the Gilford 4 and Bermingham 6.

I couldn't disagree more. Nobody denies that bombs killed all those people in Guildford and Birmingham. The point of contention was WHO planted them.

The situation Brian Murhpy's parents find themselves is that legal opinion now says that nobody killed their son. He effectively killed himself from over indulgence in alcohol. This despite the fact that he was set upon and beaten to and on the ground by a gang. And that he had only drunk at the most four pints that night.

If you want to compare it to Guildford/Birmingham it would be like declaring that the explosions were not caused by deliberately planted bombs. There was some other cause, eg a gas explosion.

As far as I can ascertain, Laide admits to being in the crowd that attacked Murphy and admits to landing blows on him. Nobody suggests he intended to kill Murphy, but Murphy still died. That, as I understand it, is the distinction between murder and manslaughter, which is what Laide should have been tried with.

And probably a few others as well.

Thirdfox

Having read some of the facts (which could be dangerous as I do not know the full picture) - it seems like the alcohol problem was only a problem due to the trauma received to the head... surely the eggshell skull rule and "but for" test would apply? e.g. if Mr X was not kicked in the head then the alcohol he drank would not have resulted in his death?