DPP v Webster
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Birmingham P. |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 342 |
| Docket Number | [94/17] |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Date | 20 December 2019 |
[2019] IECA 342
[94/17]
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Conviction – Murder – Provocation – Appellant seeking to appeal against conviction – Whether the trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury
Facts: The appellant, Mr Webster, was charged with the murder of Ms Shorthall on 3rd April 2015 at Murrough in County Wicklow. Having pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter, he was found guilty of murder on 24th March 2017, and he appealed to the Court of Appeal against that conviction on the grounds that the trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury in relation to the partial defence of provocation and also in relation to the required mens rea for murder.
Held by the Court that the trial judge’s charge was careful, focused and was, in all respects, an entirely appropriate one.
The Court held that the appeal against conviction would be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Webster was charged with the murder of Anne Shorthall on 3rd April 2015 at Murrough in County Wicklow. Having pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter, he was found guilty of murder on 24th March 2017, and he has now appealed against that conviction.
The appellant seeks to appeal against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury in relation to the partial defence of provocation and also in relation to the required mens rea for murder. While the late Ms. Shorthall met her death at the hands the appellant on 3rd April 2015, the background to the trial commences earlier, on 20th December 2014. On that occasion, the appellant was socialising with a number of others in a licensed premises in Wicklow Town. There, he met with the late Ms. Shorthall. His case at trial was that he then proceeded to have unprotected consensual sex later that night with her in her home in Wicklow.
Ms. Shorthall was experiencing severe financial difficulties, she was unemployed and her marriage had broken down and she was having difficulty meeting household bills. On 11th March 2015, she was given one month's notice to vacate the property that she was living in. The appellant's case was that on or about 25th March 2015, Ms. Shorthall was in contact with him, and in the course of that contact, told him that as a result of their liaison in December 2014, that she had become pregnant. The appellant agreed to meet with Ms. Shorthall on 2nd April 2015, and, according to him, at that point, she indicated that she required the sum of €6,500 to cover the cost of an abortion. Ms. Shorthall was not in fact pregnant, and the suggestion, emanating from the appellant, is that she required the €6,500 to defray her debts.
On the morning of Ms. Shorthall's death, the appellant arranged to meet her at the Leitrim Lounge in Wicklow and he then drove both of them to Murrough, a location on the coast, north of Wicklow Town. According to the appellant, at one point, Ms. Shorthall became angry and aggressive. She got out of the appellant's vehicle and threatened to immediately tell the appellant's wife about what had happened and that she would “ruin” the appellant. Later, the appellant would give the following account to Gardaí:
“[m]y head was spinning, I could just see me whole world crashing down. At that point, I said to myself, this one has me backed to a wall, she's going to ruin me and my family and then at that point, without thinking, I swung open the side door of the van and grabbed the first thing near me, which was a hammer, and I hit her on the head with it in the middle of the forehead. At that stage, she fell back into the van. I hit her a belt in the head and she just fell back into the van. She was still conscious. She said ‘you fucking prick, I'll ruin you’. At that point, when she fell back into the van and said ‘I'll ruin you’, it was like I was looking down at myself doing it and I hit her again. It was like as if I was looking down at someone else doing it, but I could see it was me doing it. So, as soon as I had hit her a few blows with the hammer, there was blood pouring out of her head. I couldn't believe how much. I've never seen so much blood. The blood seemed to be pouring out of the back of her head and pooling under her head. It was like looking down at someone else doing it. It was like you were watching a horror movie. I hit her once and she fell back into the van, but she was propped up and saying ‘I'll ruin you’ so I hit her again and she fell back into the van. I'd say I hit her about three or four times. At that point, I couldn't believe what had happened.”
When members of Ms. Shorhall's family became concerned for her, they made contact with the Gardaí. At an early stage, the appellant became a person of interest to Gardaí. Initially, he told Gardaí that he and the deceased had parted company at the Murrough when she had got out of his vehicle and had walked away, but later, he confessed to having killed Ms. Shorthall.
At trial, the prosecution placed some emphasis on a number of actions of the appellant after he had struck Ms. Shorthall with the hammer. These included placing tape on her, washing his hands with white spirits in the back of the van, driving home, phoning his wife on the way and going to a local Centra, the fact that having arrived at home he was observed to be “completely normal”, having dinner, interacting with his children, and perhaps having a glass of wine before falling asleep. Further emphasis was placed on the events of the following day, Saturday, including the fact that prior to removing the body of Ms. Shorthall from the van into his workshop that the appellant did some baby shopping in another vehicle, accepting that when he eventually took the body of Ms. Shorthall out of the van, that he “probably would have rubbed it down with a rag”, and the fact that the body of Ms. Shorthall was concealed behind wooden panels.
At trial, the jury heard from then State Pathologist, Professor Marie Cassidy. Her evidence was that there were nine scalp lacerations, which she described. There was an injury to the mouth of the deceased, which she did not think was a blow with the hammer, but could have been the result of a hand held roughly over the mouth. There were hand injuries which could be defensive-type injuries or caused by striking out towards somebody coming towards her. Professor Cassidy also gave evidence that there was grey or silver duct tape wrapped around the head from chin to forehead, completely concealing the face and obstructing the nose and mouth. The wrists were bound by similar duct tape.
As indicated, the appellant offered a plea to manslaughter, and so at trial, the live issue was whether the appropriate jury verdict was one of guilty of murder or not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The issues raised on the appeal in both written and oral submissions relate to the adequacy of the judge's charge, or whether in various respects he fell into error. The appellant's position is summarised in the written submissions as being that he wants to appeal against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge failed to adequately charge the jury on the defence of provocation and mens rea. It is, therefore, appropriate to consider what the judge had to say and to identify the criticisms that are advanced of the charge.
In relation to the mental element of the offence of murder, the trial judge addressed the jury in the following terms:
“Now, Ladies and...
To continue reading
Request your trial