DPP v O'Loughlin

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMs. Justice Isobel Kennedy
Judgment Date23 March 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] IECA 107
Date23 March 2021
Docket NumberRecord Number: 17/19
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ireland)
Between/
The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent/
and
David O'Loughlin
Appellant

[2021] IECA 107

Edwards J.

McCarthy J.

Kennedy J.

Record Number: 17/19

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Conviction – Murder – Intent – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether evidence of an essential element of the offence of murder was absent so as to render the conviction for murder unsafe

Facts: The appellant, Mr O'Loughlin, on the 28th January 2019, was convicted of the murder of Mr Manley and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law: (1) when allowing into evidence statements made by the appellant to Detective Garda Harrington and Detective Garda Maher at his apartment on the evening of 13th May 2013; (2) in refusing the appellant’s application, at the close of the prosecution case, to direct the jury to find the appellant not guilty on the basis that the deceased’s death was caused by an intervention which amounted to a novus actus interveniens; (3) in permitting the trial to proceed to the jury and in failing to remove the matter from the jury in circumstances where the evidence in the case did not warrant a conviction for murder; (4) in failing to re-direct the jury on the grounds requisitioned by counsel for the defence; (5) in refusing the appellant’s application for the jury to be discharged on the basis of the prejudicial nature of the evidence given by Detective Garda Harrington and the fundamentally unfair and prejudicial manner in which the evidence of Garda Harrington had been summarised to the jury by the trial judge in her charge to the jury; (6) in incorrectly charging the jury with regard to oblique intention and/or with regard to s. 4(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964; (7) in incorrectly charging the jury with regard to the principles concerning an intervention; (8) and in fact in failing to properly charge the jury regarding the unreliability of the evidence given by the principal prosecution witness, Mr O’Mahony; (9) and in fact in her charge when she charged the jury that the denial by Mr O’Mahony of a question put to him in cross-examination constituted evidence.

Held by the Court that the remarks made by the appellant were voluntary and exculpatory and it was not persuaded that any exceptional circumstances prevailed, so as to cause the trial judge to exercise her discretion and exclude an otherwise admissible statement on the part of the appellant. The Court did not see that any issue could possibly be raised with the manner in which the judge addressed the evidence concerning the conversation held with the appellant on the 13th May 2013. Her charge to the jury on this aspect of the evidence, in the view of the Court, was a model of clarity and fairness. The Court was satisfied in the circumstances that the trial judge was correct in refusing the application for a direction on the grounds of a break in the chain of causation. The Court held that no act on the part of any third party intervened so as to operate as a novus actus interveniens, thus relieving the appellant of criminal responsibility. There was, in the Court’s view, an absence of evidence regarding the mental element for murder. The Court was persuaded that the trial judge ought to have acceded to the application for a direction; evidence of an essential element of the offence of murder was absent so as to render the conviction for murder unsafe.

The Court held that it would allow the appeal and quash the conviction for murder. The Court held that it would substitute a verdict of manslaughter in accordance with s. 3 (1) (d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993. The Court considered that the appropriate approach was to remit the matter for sentence to the Central Criminal Court.

Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT of the Court delivered on the 23rd day of March 2021 by Ms. Justice Isobel Kennedy.

1

On the 28th January 2019 the appellant was convicted of the murder of Liam Manley and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant now seeks to appeal against his conviction.

Background
2

The appellant was charged with the murder of Liam Manley on the 12th May 2013, at Garden City Apartments, Cork.

3

The deceased, Mr Manley, was 59 years old at the time. He had fallen on hard times and struggled with an alcohol dependency over the years and lived in sheltered accommodation provided by the Simon Community. On the night in question he was observed as being intoxicated but not causing any trouble.

4

Early in the morning of 12th May 2013, CCTV footage showed the appellant go to the McDonalds fast food restaurant and purchase some take-away food and bring it across the road to the deceased. At 4:23am CCTV footage showed the appellant and the deceased going back to the appellant's apartment.

5

CCTV footage showed a Mr David O'Mahony enter the appellant's apartment at 6:04am. At some stage after Mr O'Mahony arrived, the evidence disclosed that the appellant attacked the deceased in the apartment. According to the witness, the appellant punched the deceased full force a number of times to the head, which resulted in blood being splattered over the walls and couch in the living room in the apartment. At some stage between the hours of 6am and 8am the appellant took the deceased out of the apartment and put him head first into a rubbish chute at the top of the apartment. The evidence would suggest that there was a struggle on the part of the deceased before he was pushed head first down into the rubbish chute.

6

The accused returned to the apartment and evidence was given by various witnesses as to what transpired in the course of the day, including admissions made by the appellant to a number of persons by phone and who later called to the apartment where he indicated that he had “put the old man down the drain”.

7

On Monday 13th May 2013, Michael Francis Ford, whose job was to put rubbish from the ground into the emptied bin, discovered that the rubbish chute was blocked. He used rods to attempt to unblock it. A number of bags came down the chute followed by blood and eventually a body fell down from the chute.

8

The State Pathologist, Dr Margaret Bolster, gave evidence that the cause of death was a combination of traumatic and positional asphyxia and hypoxia.

9

Following the discovery of the body, the investigation began; CCTV footage was gathered by gardaí from around the centre of Cork City and, in due course the appellant was nominated as a suspect. The appellant was arrested on 21st May 2013, and was interviewed on six separate occasions by members of An Garda Síochána. He ultimately accepted that the deceased had been in his apartment and that nobody else had been involved in any altercation or assault with the deceased.

10

The trial commenced on the 15th January 2019 and on the 28th January 2019, following a ten-day trial, the appellant was convicted of the murder of Liam Manley.

Grounds of Appeal
11

The appellant puts forward nine grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal, and while in written submissions he appears to rely on five grounds, it was clarified on the hearing of this appeal that he relies on all nine grounds, albeit grouped together. The grounds as set out in the notice of appeal recite as follows:-

  • (1) That the learned trial judge erred in law when allowing into evidence statements made by the appellant to Detective Garda Padraig Harrington and Detective Garda Brian Maher at his apartment on the evening of Monday 13th May 2013.

  • (2) The learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the appellant's application, at the close of the prosecution case, to direct the jury to find the appellant not guilty on the basis that the deceased's death was caused by an intervention which amounted to a novus actus interveniens.

  • (3) The learned trial judge erred in law in permitting the trial to proceed to the jury and in failing to remove the matter from the jury in circumstances where the evidence in the case did not warrant a conviction for murder.

  • (4) That the learned trial judge erred in law in failing to re-direct the jury on the grounds requisitioned by counsel for the defence.

  • (5) The learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the appellant's application for the jury to be discharged on the basis of the prejudicial nature of the evidence given by Detective Garda Padraig Harrington and the fundamentally unfair and prejudicial manner in which the evidence of Garda Harrington had been summarised to the jury by the learned trial judge in her charge to the jury.

  • (6) The learned trial judge erred in law in incorrectly charging the jury with regard to oblique intention and/or with regard to section 4(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1964.

  • (7) The learned trial judge erred in law in incorrectly charging the jury with regard to the principles concerning an intervention which amounts to a novus actus interveniens.

  • (8) The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in failing to properly charge the jury regarding the unreliability of the evidence given by the principal prosecution witness, David O'Mahony.

  • (9) The learned trial judge erred in law and in fact in her charge when she charged the jury that the denial by David O'Mahony of a question put to him in cross-examination constituted evidence.

12

Mr O'Higgins SC for the appellant clarified that Grounds 1 and 5 may be dealt with together, Grounds 2, 3, and 7 together, Grounds 8 and 9 together, Ground 6 concerns oblique intent and, finally, Ground 4 relates to requisitions raised on issues the subject of various grounds of appeal.

13

In the course of the oral hearing Mr O'Higgins emphasised what he termed as the qualitative difference between the appellant's intention in putting the deceased into the rubbish chute and the actual consequences of his actions. It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • DPP v Ross Outram
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 16 July 2021
    ...… outside the de minimis range”. 31 . This Court referred to the same extract in the recent decision of The People (DPP) v. O'Loughlin [2021] IECA 107, where the issue of causation was raised, but where the appeal ultimately rested with the requisite mental element of murder. In any event, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT