DPP v Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Edwards J.,Sheehan J.
• Judgment Date: 18 June 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IECA 131
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: [2012/272]
• Date: 18 June 2015

[2015] IECA 131

THE COURT OF APPEAL

The President

Sheehan J.

Edwards J.

[2012/272]

Between

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

and

Philip Doyle

Appellant

Sentencing – Manslaughter – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether the conviction of the appellant was safe

Facts: The appellant, Mr Doyle, in a trial that took place between 16th April 2012 and 15th June 2012, was convicted of the manslaughter of his partner”s 3 ½ month old baby and was subsequently, on 31st July 2012, sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against the conviction and failing that he appealed against the sentence on the ground of severity. The appeal was directed to the trial generally, with grounds 1 and 2 concerning the admissibility of medical expert evidence, ground 3 to 6 concerning a direction application, ground 7 concerning an element of the prosecution”s closing speech and ground 8 concerning the judge”s charge. There were an additional 14 grounds.

Held by Ryan P that the grounds of appeal, although numerous, were not made out and did not invalidate the trial or the result. The Court was of the view that the trial of the appellant was satisfactory and the conviction safe. The principal objection, namely, that medical evidence called for special treatment in the form of a warning to the jury and specific directions by the trial judge was rejected by the Court as being inappropriate and unwarranted in the circumstances of the trial. The Court did not rule out any such warning in the case of expert evidence given by medical specialists or others in a criminal trial when it is necessary or desirable to do so. This, however, was held to not be such a case. In respect of a number of the grounds of appeal, Ryan P held that it could not be said that it would have been wrong to embark upon an analysis of differences that the trial judge perceived or that were suggested to him by Counsel from the evidence of the different witnesses; if the judge thought it necessary to do so, he could have chosen some or all of the points identified by Counsel and to have selected excerpts from the evidence to demonstrate points of similarity or difference or agreement or conflict. Ryan P held that it was, however, a wholly different proposition to say that the trial judge was at fault in failing to do what he would have been entitled to do if he had thought it necessary. The Court was satisfied that the course adopted by the trial judge did not represent an erroneous presentation to the jury and that there was no dispute between the experts on questions relating to medicine, as such; the issue that the jury had to consider was whether the number, nature, severity and distribution of the injuries to the baby might reasonably have been accounted for by the fall theory and the subsequent handling by lay persons and medical treatment. Ryan P held that, clearly, the onus lay on the prosecution to refute such a proposition to the satisfaction of the jury beyond reasonable doubt. Ryan P held that the trial judge correctly left the case to the jury for decision; he gave a thorough description of the evidence given by the various witnesses, but he kept comment on the evidence to a minimum. The Court was satisfied that the judge dealt with the evidence in an entirely satisfactory manner, having regard to the issues in the case.

Ryan P held that the appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

1 In a trial that took place between 16th April 2012 and 15th June 2012, the appellant was convicted of the manslaughter of his partner's 3¹/₂ month old baby and was subsequently, on 31st July 2012, sentenced to imprisonment for 11 years. He now appeals against the conviction, and if he fails in that, he appeals against the sentence on the ground of severity.

2 Baby Ross was born by Caesarean Section on 10th December 2004 to Leona Murphy at Wexford General Hospital. She is from Gorey, County Wexford and she had met the appellant in September 2004 and began a relationship. He was not the father of her baby. In January 2005, after staying with her parents at their home for a period after Ross's birth, Leona and the appellant moved in together with Ross to a house in Gorey.

3 The appellant sought to have his name added to Ross' Birth Certificate, but Ms. Murphy would not consent to that. She gave evidence at trial that the appellant and Ross seemed to get on well together, although she did express some concern that the appellant would “jerk” Ross if he was sleeping while he fed, and that she did not see the point of that and had asked him to refrain.

4 The baby was generally healthy, but it appears that in late March 2005, he had been suffering from a rash on his upper body and neck that came and went. An unusual incident occurred on Thursday 31st March 2005 shortly after the appellant had put the baby to bed at about 8pm. Mr. Doyle volunteered and went up to check Ross and was gone for some minutes when he called down to Leona to come up. He told her the baby had got sick and hadnow gone limp and apparently lifeless. The two adults brought the baby to the bathroom and splashed some water over his head and neck, which brought him around and back to normal.

5 Although Leona was greatly relieved by the fact that Ross had revived so quickly and so well, she was concerned at what had happened and as to the cause. She rang her mother and also spoke to her sister and their advice was to consult the out of hours doctor service, Caredoc. The appellant and Leona brought Ross to the doctor, who was concerned enough to recommend that they should proceed to Wexford General Hospital A&E Department. When they got there, the medical staff examined Ross and decided to admit him and he remained in hospital until Sunday 3rd April 2005.

6 Leona and Phillip and members of her family attended at the hospital over the weekend and some of them stayed overnight to be with the baby. He was kept under observation by the medical staff and given various tests and was seen and examined regularly by the doctors and nurses, but they did not find anything wrong with him and were happy to discharge him at about 11.00am on Sunday, when the appellant and Leona brought him back to Gorey.

7 Ross behaved normally on Sunday afternoon at home and gave no cause for concern. Members of Leona's family were around until the early evening. At about 6.00pm, Leona decided to go down the town to get a DVD from the rental shop, leaving Ross at home with the appellant. Soon after she left the house, she changed her mind about going to the rental shop and decided instead to go to her friend's house because she thought that the friend still had the film that Leona wanted to rent. Because she was not going where she said, she called Philip on his mobile phone but there was no reply on the first two times that she rang and his phone rang out. She was gone some ten minutes or so when she got through on the third occasion, when she discovered alarming news. Philip told her that he had Ross in his arms and that he was lifeless again, the same way he had been on the previous Thursday night. He had not phoned the doctor or an ambulance. Leona made her way home as quickly as possible, which took a little longer because the friend to whom she called said that their car was broken down so she had to get another friend to drive her home.

8 The situation at home was very serious. Despite taking similar measures to what they had done on the previous Thursday, they were unable to get Ross to come round. He was practically lifeless and was apparently having difficulty breathing. Leona phoned for an ambulance and got advice from the Controller while waiting for it to come to the house, which it did very quickly. The doctor had arrived before the ambulance and went with the baby to Wexford General Hospital, where Ross arrived and was admitted at 00.30 hours on Sunday night/Monday morning the 2nd/3rd April 2005.

9 On admission to hospital, Ross was in a very serious condition. The doctors at Wexford noted the various features of the baby's presentation, which included difficulty breathing; significant generalised bruising; evidence of ocular haemorrhaging and signs of brain damage. Realising the perilous condition of the baby, the medical team in Wexford transferred him to Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin in Dublin. Ross arrived at 4.00am and was immediately admitted to Intensive Care. Despite the efforts of the medicaland nursing staff, however, he did not recover and died on Tuesday 5th April 2005 in Crumlin Hospital.

10 The medical personnel in Wexford General Hospital and in Crumlin were concerned about the cause of the very severe and extensive injuries that Ross had apparently suffered. One doctor in Wexford thought that it might be a case of Shaken Baby Syndrome. The post-mortem examination that was carried out confirmed the general nature of the severe injuries and reinforced the doctors' suspicions that what had happened to Ross did not come about naturally and could not have happened accidentally. This was because of the spread of the evidence of trauma over his body in extensive bruising, externally and internally, the severe brain injury that had caused his death and the ocular haemorrhaging that was further evidence of trauma.

11 The Gardaí were duly notified and they began an investigation. Suspicion fell on the appellant and he was interviewed under caution. So, also, obviously, was Leona. She initially told the Gardaí that she and the appellant had both been at home with Ross during all of the relevant time. However, she later admitted having gone into town, leaving Ross in the care of the appellant.

...