Director of Public Prosecutions v Crawford
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IECA 87 |
| Docket Number | Record No: 204/2020 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
[2023] IECA 87
Birmingham P.
Edwards J.
Kennedy J.
Record No: 204/2020
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Conviction – Murder – Self-defence – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial judge erred in law in her instruction to the jury on self-defence
Facts: The appellant, Mr Crawford, on the 31st of August 2020, was tried before the Central Criminal Court in relation to a charge of the murder, contrary to common law, of a Mr O’Connor (the victim) on the 7th of July 2018 at Fitzgerald’s Bar, Sexton Street, Limerick. On the 10th of September 2020, the appellant was convicted of murder by a unanimous jury verdict. He was then remanded in custody for sentencing. On the 2nd of October 2020, the appellant was sentenced to the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction for murder. He contended that his trial was unsatisfactory and unfair, and that his conviction was accordingly unsafe, for the following reasons: (1) the charge of the trial judge was unsatisfactory in all the circumstances including that (a) the trial judge erred in law in her instruction to the jury on self-defence, and in particular on the subjective elements to be considered by the jury in determining whether the prosecution had proved that the killing of the victim by the accused was not carried out in self-defence, (b) the trial judge erred in directing the jury that whereas they had to apply a wholly subjective test in considering whether the accused believed he was under threat to his life or person, they then had to apply a wholly objective test in considering whether the degree of force used by the accused, in response to any attack or threat he perceived he was under, was reasonable in the circumstances, and (c) the trial judge erred in law in that she did not, adequately or at all, instruct the jury on how to consider the account provided by the accused, and in particular that, if the account provided by the accused could reasonably be true, they must give the accused the benefit of that account; and (2) in all the circumstances the verdict of the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Held by the Court that the Dwyer jurisprudence (The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Dwyer [1972] I.R. 416) as it had been interpreted remained the law. The Court held that insofar as a question may arise in a fatal case as to whether the quantum of force used was reasonable or not, that issue will fall to be judged according to the circumstances as they actually were, not according to the circumstances as the accused perceived them to be. However, the Court held that an asserted claim by the accused that he or she used had no more force than they genuinely believed to be necessary falls to be subjectively tested. The Court held that, in that event, what is being tested is the genuineness of the mistaken belief being asserted. In the Court’s judgment, it does not involve, and the judgment ought not to be interpreted as requiring, a re-consideration of the reasonableness of the quantum of force used in self-defence in light of circumstances as they were perceived to be by the accused. In the circumstances, the Court was not disposed to uphold grounds 1(a) and (b). Having considered the entirety of the judge’s charge, the Court was in no doubt that it was entirely adequate and that the complaint being made that it was vague or confusing as to how the appellant’s account was to be treated was simply not borne out. Accordingly, the Court rejected ground 1(c). In circumstances where the Court had rejected the alleged errors complained of in ground 1 as being without substance, the Court held that ground 2 fell away.
The Court dismissed the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT of the Court delivered by Mr. Justice Edwards on 31st of March, 2023.
On the 31st of August 2020 the appellant was tried before the Central Criminal Court in relation to a charge of the murder, contrary to common law, of a Mr. Patrick O'Connor (i.e. “the victim”) on the 7th of July 2018 at Fitzgerald's Bar, Sexton Street, Limerick. On the 10th of September 2020 the appellant was convicted of murder by a unanimous jury verdict. He was then remanded in custody for sentencing.
On the 2nd of October 2020 the appellant was sentenced to the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment.
The appellant now appeals against his conviction for murder.
Both sides have produced summaries of the main evidence at trial in their helpful written submissions. The Court has read the full transcript and is happy that, subject to one caveat, the summaries provided are accurate, and intends to draw on both. The caveat expressed is not with respect to the actual evidence given, but rather with respect to differing interpretations of it in one critical respect as between prosecution and defence.
The evidence is uncontroversial that at approximately 11.30pm, while the appellant and the victim were present at a seating area in Fitzgerald's bar, Sexton Street, Limerick, to the left of the main entrance as one enters that premises, there was some interaction (to use a neutral word) between the appellant and the victim in the course of which the appellant came to fatally stab the victim. Six stab wounds were inflicted, being to the neck, chest, back and arms, with the fatal wounds being those to the neck and the chest. The appellant then fled the scene.
The parties' respective interpretations of the incident differ in this way. According to the appellant's summary, at approximately 11.30pm there were raised voices between the appellant and the victim. It was said that “ a fight broke out” and the appellant stabbed the victim six times. It is relevant in that regard that the case was subsequently defended by the appellant on the basis that he had acted in self-defence.
The prosecution's summary of the evidence joins issue with the suggestion that “ a fight broke out”, and it is contended that that represents a mischaracterisation of the evidence. It was the State's case that there was no fight but that the deceased was attacked by the appellant while he was sitting on a chair and in circumstances where the attack was so fast that he did not have a chance to defend himself and had no defensive injuries. On the State's case, this was supported by the fact that the appellant was closer to the bar door than he was to the deceased and that if he was under attack, or threat of attack, at any stage he could simply have left the bar rather than stay and stab the deceased six times. This was said to have been particularly the case in circumstances where there was uncontroverted evidence that shortly before the stabbing the parties had been outside the bar having a cigarette but had re-entered together and sat down and continued drinking.
In the light of the different interpretations of the evidence, it will be appropriate to set out as neutrally as possible the actual evidence received by the jury concerning the circumstances in which the critical event occurred, and this will be done at the appropriate point in the chronology. There is little dispute between the parties concerning the remainder of the chronology and, as indicated, the summary which follows borrows from the written submissions of both sides and is supplemented where necessary from the transcript.
The jury heard evidence that on the 6th of July 2018, the day before the critical occurrence, the appellant and his sister, a Ms. Sandra Crawford, had met the victim in a local bookmaker's premises. The appellant gave the victim his phone number and was subsequently contacted by the victim who asked him and his sister out for a drink. The appellant and his sister joined the victim and after having some drinks, cocaine and a takeaway they returned to Ms. Crawford's home at 36 Distillery View, Thomondgate, in Limerick where the appellant also happened to be staying. The appellant later told the gardaí when they interviewed him following his arrest and detention, that while there the victim and the appellant's sister had kissed. According to the appellant's account his nieces, who also lived in the house, were upset by the victim's presence there. On the following morning sharp words were exchanged between the appellant and his nieces, and the appellant told his nieces that his sister had been kissed by the victim. The appellant's sister subsequently communicated what the appellant had said to his nieces about her and the victim, to the victim.
The victim, having been so informed, called to the appellant's sister's home. The appellant subsequently claimed while being interviewed by gardaí that he was frightened that the victim had called.
Evidence was given by a Mr. Matthew Hickey that while staying at his girlfriend's house at 44 Distillery View, Thomondgate, Limerick, on the morning of the 7th of July 2018 he heard an argument between the appellant and his sister. Later that morning, through an open window, he heard the voices of two males, believed by him to be those of the appellant and the victim, who was a cousin of the witness's girlfriend. He described the voices as initially mumbling before then becoming progressively louder, although not shouting or roaring.
The victim went to Fitzgerald's bar on Sexton Street in Limerick at 11:00am and alternated between drinking in the bar and visiting a nearby bookmaker's premises throughout the day. At a certain point the appellant rang the victim to apologise for the exchange that had occurred earlier, following which he met up with the victim at Fitzgerald's Bar at a time estimated as being between 16.45pm and 17.00pm. For much of the rest of the evening until the critical incident the pair...
To continue reading
Request your trial