The Court of Criminal Appeal has quashed Thomas O’Connor’s conviction for the killing of John O’Brien and directed a retrial, ruling that the jury should have been allowed to consider self-defence.
The court’s judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 24 November 2014, concerned the trial judge’s decision not to leave self-defence to the jury. The jury had considered provocation, but not self-defence. The appeal court said there was enough evidence for the jury to consider the defence, while stressing that the evidence was limited and faced substantial contrary evidence.
The judgment recounts that O’Brien died from a catastrophic head injury caused by a 1.6-kilogram rock. Witnesses described seeing a man in a grey hoodie standing over and repeatedly striking another man. The court also noted evidence that O’Brien had been violent earlier that evening.
In statements to gardaí, O’Connor said O’Brien struck him during a dispute, that they tussled, and that O’Brien tried to hit him with the rock. O’Connor said he then picked it up and struck O’Brien. The judgment describes those accounts as essentially consistent. It also records O’Connor’s statements that he was in a rage, had gone too far and had lost control. The court did not decide whether those accounts were true; at the stage of deciding whether the defence should go to the jury, the evidence had to be considered at its highest from the accused’s perspective.
The appeal court explained that a complete self-defence claim requires force no greater than was objectively necessary to repel an unlawful assault. Where lethal force exceeded that objective limit but was no more than the accused subjectively considered necessary, the defence may reduce murder to manslaughter. Once raised, the prosecution must disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.
The court found evidence suggesting an assault initiated by O’Brien, an attempted use of the rock as a weapon, and a drunken struggle. It held that the question of whether the force was reasonable was for the jury. The trial judge could have explained the weakness of the evidence and the weight of the contrary evidence, but should not have excluded the defence entirely.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed and a retrial directed. The court said it was unnecessary to address the further arguments raised. The judgment does not determine whether O’Connor acted in self-defence or what the outcome of the retrial would be.