The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed Brian Willoughby’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of 19-year-old Brian Mulvaney following a violent assault in Templeogue, Dublin.
Willoughby was convicted in the Central Criminal Court on April 2, 2003. Stephen Aherne was convicted of manslaughter and a third accused, Neill Barbour, was acquitted.
Mulvaney had attended a house party before leaving with Willoughby in the early hours of March 11, 2000. The court recorded that he was later repeatedly kicked and beaten after being caught following an initial assault. A length of timber was also used.
State Pathologist Professor John Harbison concluded that Mulvaney died by asphyxiation after blood from facial injuries entered his lungs while his cough reflex was suppressed by concussion.
After trial, retired pathologist Professor Dermot Hourihane contacted Willoughby’s solicitor and suggested that pathological findings might instead support a contribution from ecstasy poisoning. Willoughby sought to introduce that opinion as fresh evidence on appeal.
The appeal court refused. It held that the possible role of ecstasy had been an obvious and extensively examined issue before the 2003 retrial. The defence had retained an independent forensic pathologist and had about 13 months to investigate causation. The scientific material relied upon by Professor Hourihane was also available before trial.
The court further found that his proposed evidence would not have materially affected the verdict. It stressed evidence that Mulvaney had shown no signs of illness before the assault, had tried to escape his attackers and had sustained facial injuries capable of causing substantial bleeding immediately before his breathing failed.
The court also rejected an argument that the trial judge intervened excessively while questioning defence psychiatrist Professor Fitzgerald. It found the interventions permissible and not prejudicial.
A final argument concerning the jury directions on Willoughby’s mental state and intent was also rejected. The court held that the judge had adequately explained murder, manslaughter, insanity and the requirement that the prosecution prove the necessary intent beyond reasonable doubt.
The murder conviction therefore remained in place.