The Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed Anthony Farrell’s appeal against his murder conviction, finding that the trial judge’s directions on self-defence did not require the conviction to be overturned.
The appeal concerned the way the jury was instructed after Farrell argued that he stabbed shop owner John Deasy while trying to escape and could have been acting in self-defence. The appeal court said there was no evidence that Deasy tried to injure Farrell with a knife or did anything that could have made Farrell apprehend that he was about to be injured.
The judgment recounts that Deasy died after being stabbed during a robbery at his shop in Arklow, Co Wicklow, on 25 November 2009. Farrell admitted involvement in the robbery in statements to gardaí, but did not give evidence at trial. He said he stabbed Deasy to get past him at the doorway and escape. A witness also recounted Farrell’s account that Deasy was blocking the door and kicking him back into the shop.
Farrell pleaded not guilty to murder and guilty to two robbery counts. A jury in the Central Criminal Court convicted him of murder on 13 April 2011. At trial, the judge told jurors that self-defence could not arise if they found the stabbing was done to escape. Farrell argued on appeal that this removed the possibility that escaping and defending himself could overlap.
The appeal court held that, on the facts of this case, if the jury found beyond reasonable doubt that Farrell stabbed Deasy to escape, that ruled out the possibility that the stabbing was for self-defence. It stressed that it was not laying down an absolute rule: circumstances could be imagined in which self-defence might arise during an escape. The court considered the defence in this case to be weak because there was no evidence that Farrell believed his life or person was in danger.
Farrell also argued that the jury had not been adequately directed on the subjective element of self-defence: what he was thinking at the time. The court said the trial judge’s explanation could have been expanded and would have been inadequate on its own, but the jury heard it in the context of the full charge and the parties’ submissions. It was therefore sufficiently aware of the test. The appeal was dismissed.