The Supreme Court has quashed Richard Dekker’s acquittal by direction in a murder case and ordered that he be retried, finding that the prosecution evidence should have been considered by a jury.
The appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 23 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2010, which permits an appeal on a question of law from an acquittal directed by a trial judge. The question was whether the prosecution case, taken at its highest, could support a murder conviction on the basis that Mr Dekker was an accessory.
Daniel McAnaspie, aged 17 and in HSE care, was last seen alive in February 2010 with Mr Dekker and Trevor Noone. His remains were found in May that year. Mr Dekker and Mr Noone were charged with his murder. At the close of the prosecution case in their 2013 trial, the Central Criminal Court directed the jury to acquit Mr Dekker. The jury was discharged in relation to Mr Noone, whose trial was set for a later date.
The trial judge said the evidence against Mr Dekker came from his statements and interviews. He considered that Mr Dekker’s account, at its highest, showed he believed Mr McAnaspie would receive “a few digs”, and found there was no evidence Mr Dekker knew death or serious injury would be inflicted.
The Supreme Court examined Mr Dekker’s seventh interview with gardaí. In it, he said Mr Noone wanted to take Mr McAnaspie to the Tolka to give him a “hiding”, and that Mr Noone had brought shears from Mr Dekker’s front garden. Mr Dekker also said he did not know Mr Noone intended to kill and thought he would give Mr McAnaspie a few blows.
Justice Elizabeth Dunne said that, considered together, the account of an earlier altercation, the use of a ruse to bring Mr McAnaspie to an isolated place, and Mr Noone’s possession of the shears provided evidence from which a jury could draw inferences about Mr Dekker’s knowledge and intention. Whether Mr Dekker knew the nature of the crime Mr Noone intended was for a jury to decide.
The court also considered the effect of the English decision in *R v Rahman*. It said an accessory’s mental element is not necessarily identical to the principal’s, but rejected the argument that the law requires a lower level of intent from an accessory to murder. Where each has the intention required by section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, each may be liable for murder.
The court allowed the DPP’s appeal, quashed the acquittal and directed a retrial. It did not find Mr Dekker guilty; the question of his criminal responsibility remains for a jury.