DPP v Eadon
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IECA 145 |
| Docket Number | Record No: 44/2014 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 15 May 2018 |
[2018] IECA 145
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Edwards J.
Mahon J.
Edwards J.
Hedigan J.
Record No: 44/2014
Conviction – Murder – Specific intent – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the appellant lacked the necessary specific intent
Facts: The appellant, Mr Eadon, on 15th February 2014, following a ten day trial, was convicted of the murder of his mother on 9th March 2011 at their home in Derrycrieve, Castlebar, Co. Mayo. The appellant's plea of guilty to manslaughter was rejected by the prosecution. At the appellant's trial on the murder charge, a defence of diminished responsibility as provided for by s. 6 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 went advanced before the jury, but was rejected by them. An alternative defence contending that the appellant lacked the specific intent necessary for the homicide to be characterised as murder rather than manslaughter was also rejected by the jury. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction for murder. He accepted the verdict of the jury with respect to their rejection of his defence based upon diminished responsibility, but contended that he ought to have been acquitted of murder on the basis that he lacked the necessary specific intent. In that regard, he complained that the trial judge misdirected the jury concerning the issue of his intoxication and its relevance in the assessment of his intent.
Held by the Court that the trial was satisfactory and that the verdict was safe.
The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
On the 15th of February 2014, following a ten day trial, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his mother Nóirín Eadon on the 9th of March 2011 at their home in Derrycrieve, Castlebar, Co. Mayo.
The appellant's plea of guilty to manslaughter was rejected by the prosecution. At the appellant's trial on the murder charge, a defence of diminished responsibility as provided for by s.6 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 went advanced before the jury, but was rejected by them.
An alternative defence contending that the appellant lacked the specific intent necessary for the homicide to be characterised as murder rather than manslaughter was also rejected by the jury.
The appellant now appeals against his conviction for murder. He accepts the verdict of the jury with respect to their rejection of his defence based upon diminished responsibility, but contends that he ought to have been acquitted of murder on the basis that he lacked the necessary specific intent. In that regard, he complains that the trial judge misdirected the jury concerning the issue of his intoxication and its relevance in the assessment of his intent.
The appellant, who was 19 years of age and unemployed at the time of the incident, had serious substance abuse issues. Since the age of 13 he had abused alcohol and cannabis and in the two years preceding the incident he had begun consuming other drugs including amphetamines, cocaine, crystal meth (otherwise methamphetamine), ecstasy and methadone. In the 18 months prior to the incident he had been spending approximately €400 per week on drugs. In addition, he drank large quantities of alcohol on a near daily basis. He had no known history of violence.
The appellant lived in the family home, a modest house in the countryside in Co Mayo, with his mother (the deceased), and his younger brother and younger sister. The deceased, although married to the appellant's father, Mark Eadon, had been separated from him for some years. In the five days immediately prior to the incident the appellant was consuming a large quantity of drugs, in particular amphetamines as well as methadone and diazepam, and because of the effect of the amphetamines was unable to sleep. During this period he suffered paranoid delusions and engaged in erratic behaviour: spraying deodorant to ward off demons; believing he was being pursued by aliens and making crop circles to communicate with them; asserting that fire ants and demons were emerging from the walls; imagining that the house was full of smoke; blocking the air vent in his bedroom with coins and stones because he believed the room was being filled with poison gas; and setting on fire an electrical socket and the family cat's bed.
On the 8th of March 2011 the deceased sought help for the appellant from her brother Patrick Kelly who is a long-time member of Alcoholics Anonymous. He visited the family home accompanied by a friend and recovered drug addict, Kevin Mitchell. The appellant's paranoia was evident to both and the deceased was very concerned. She was also visited on that date by her friend Diane Macko, who also observed the appellant's paranoid state. The deceased was so concerned that she hid a chain saw and petrol from the appellant.
The deceased also sought help from the appellant's father, Mark Eadon, with whom the appellant had fallen out about eight months previously. Mark Eadon arrived sometime after 9 p.m. on the 8th of March 2011 and found that the appellant had barricaded the deceased and her younger son, Ferdia, out of the house. Mark Eadon said the appellant appeared paranoid and delusional and was telling him that some of his drugs had gone missing, believing his uncle Patrick had taken them. The appellant's father succeeded in calming his son down to some extent and prompted him to admit that he had a drug problem. Having calmed the appellant down he left the deceased's house before 11.30 p.m. He told the Court that the deceased's numerous attempts to get professional help for her son from state services, both on the day in question and in the period preceding it, had been unsuccessful.
At approximately 1.30 a.m. on the morning of the 9th of March 2011 the appellant's younger brother, Ferdia Eadon, was awoken by muffled screams and found his mother on the floor of the living room mortally wounded. By this point the appellant had left the house The deceased was later found at post mortem to have 18 stab wounds including one to her eyeball as well as defensive type wounds to her hands.
At approximately 7.20 a.m. on the 9th of March 2011 the appellant arrived at the house of John Scott shivering and barefoot and wearing only a set of wet tracksuit bottoms. Mr Scott lived in the neighbouring townland of Rehins, which was not accessible by road from the appellant's house. The appellant's body was covered in scratches and cuts. He spoke of having been abducted by aliens who experimented on his mind, of radiation poisoning and said he may have killed his mother. The Gardaí were called by Mr Scott. They had already been alerted to the mortal wounding of the deceased and were in any case seeking the appellant. The appellant was arrested and brought to Castlebar Garda Station where he was detained and interviewed.
The appellant was interviewed on six occasions. In an early interview he told Gardaí that '[the deceased] went for me. I didn't know whether it was my mother. It was a totally different person. I had a knife in my pocket. I clipped her with the knife. I fell asleep in the room. I woke up. I couldn't breathe. I went out to cut a tree'. In his first interview the appellant rambled incoherently, speaking loudly and at a fast pace. He told Gardaí inter alia that he had been pursued by aliens, that his room was filled with smoke, that his father was drinking toxic water, and seemed at certain times to be unaware that his mother was dead. He also appeared to imply that his mother had been replaced by an imposter or that she was 'mad'. He was however aware that his drugs had gone missing and that he had argued with his mother about this.
In a later interview the appellant admitted to killing his mother:
'Question: You're being detained here for the unlawful killing of your mother at Derrycrieve, Islandeady, this morning?
'Answer: I find it hard to accept, yes, I did do it. I don't know what to say. My eyes were playing tricks on me. I didn't see what I was doing. I woke up not being moving around, being frozen. I don't know what happened. All I can tell you that I remember is stabbing and freaking and running out of the house.
'Question: Stabbing who?
'Answer: My mother. At the time I thought it wasn't my mother. I didn't really know what I done, that orange on me I think is blood. Why wasn't there blood on my trousers? I don't know whether I cleaned it or not. I didn't wash myself. How come there's no blood on me. Whatever shite, I don't know.
'Question: What happened before?
'Answer: I was getting funny old notions, someone was in my room and took my drugs, speed, money. They might have got my passport and money. It made me confused and wondered who the fuck done it.
'Question: Were you angry?
'Answer: I don't know. I didn't stab my mother over that. Someone pulled the wool over my eyes. It was my own fault. It was me who done it.
'Question: Take it a step at a time?
'Answer: I didn't see. I killed her because I was on a cocktail of drugs for days. I didn't know it was my mother. I ran out in shock and didn't realise until this morning.
'Question: You did kill your mother?
'Answer: As far as I know. I didn't finish her off. I stabbed her and left her at that. I didn't realise what I'd done at all. I'm very confused. I was timed. I guarantee you that it will hit me like a tonne of bricks in the morning. I didn't realise what I'd done at all.
The appellant was later examined by psychiatric professionals. Dr Conor O'Neill, a consultant psychiatrist at the Central Mental Hospital, accepted that the appellant was likely to have been highly intoxicated at the time. In cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Eadon
...to form the intent required for murder. 30 By judgment delivered on the 15th May, 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal ( [2018] IECA 145). The judgment of the Court was delivered by Edwards J, with whom Mahon and Hedigan JJ agreed. The Court held that it was a correct statement o......