The Court of Appeal has upheld Edmundas Dauksa’s murder conviction, rejecting his arguments that a provocation defence should have gone to the jury and that the jury was inadequately directed on intoxication.
Dauksa appealed on two grounds. He argued that a phone call on 18 September 2018, cancelling a planned visit with his child, was the final provocative act in a series of events following the child’s transfer into the custody of her mother. He also argued that the jury should have been directed to consider whether alcohol affected his ability to form the intent required for murder.
The court said Dauksa had been the child’s primary carer for six years. After a court order required the child to be produced before the District Court, Gardaí took her from his home on 14 September 2018. Dauksa attended a hearing without legal representation, after which the child left with her mother. Evidence at trial described him as distressed and drinking in the days that followed.
On 18 September, the child’s mother told Dauksa’s wife she would not bring the child to visit. His wife relayed the message. Dauksa left home on foot and went to the mother’s address. CCTV showed the mother and child following him into an alleyway; the fatal stabbing occurred out of view. A pathologist said the deceased had 19 stab wounds, including defensive-type injuries to her left arm.
The trial judge had refused to leave provocation to the jury, finding no reasonable possibility on the evidence that Dauksa had been without control when he stabbed the deceased because of the phone call. The Court of Appeal said the threshold for leaving a defence to a jury is low, but the evidence must also support conduct capable in law of amounting to provocation. It held that the mother’s cancellation of the visit, alone or in the context of the preceding events, could not meet that test. Custody was governed by the court, which had awarded her custody. The judges also said the sequence of arming himself with a knife, walking to the address and speaking with the deceased before the stabbing was difficult to reconcile with an immediate and total loss of self-control.
On intoxication, the court acknowledged that the jury should consider whether a defendant in fact formed the intent required for murder, taking account of evidence of drinking. But it found intoxication was not a significant part of the defence at trial. Defence counsel did not pursue the issue after the trial judge raised it, and the closing speech did not suggest alcohol played a role in the stabbing. The court said it would be artificial to give the issue greater significance on appeal, even if the jury charge may have been technically incomplete.
Both grounds of appeal failed. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.