Wicklow man pleads guilty over incident linked to father-of-seven’s death after pyschiatric assessments

By Darragh McCann, The Wicklow People

A man who was found fit to stand trial following a fitness to plead hearing has pleaded guilty to two charges in connection with the death of William “Willie” Moorehouse, a father of seven who was found dead in a playground in Bray on January 19, 2025.

Kyle O’Connor (19), of Ballywaltrim Heights, Bray, Co. Wicklow, appeared before Wicklow Circuit Criminal Court charged with one count of producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury and one count of violent disorder.

Evidence was heard from two psychiatrists with opposing views.

Dr Alan Gallogly, a forensic psychiatrist who carried out the psychiatric assessment on behalf of the prosecution, gave evidence that he found the accused fit to stand trial.

Dr Gallogly, who is based in Australia but graduated from Queen’s University in Belfast, specialises in psychiatric assessments, expert witness reports and court-related psychiatric opinions.

He stated that he had been provided with written statements, the book of evidence and one of the defence’s fitness-to-plead reports, dated early 2025 and summer 2025.

He said he put standard questions to Mr O’Connor to assess his understanding of the criminal justice process.

He said he indicated he understood what a plea of guilty or not guilty meant, but that he did not know what a jury was.

He remarked this could reflect Mr O’Connor’s educational disadvantage and history of head injury.

During the assessment, Mr O’Connor spoke about the alleged incident before the court.

He told Dr Gallogly that he had been assaulted, stating: “Three of them jumped on me and bullied me.”

“It wasn’t violent, it was all on camera. I didn’t do anything,” he added.

Dr Gallogly said Mr O’Connor had asserted a clear attitude to the alleged facts of the case.

When asked about the concept of evidence, Mr O’Connor understood, but when questioned further about the issue, he stated: “I’m not sure.”

Dr Gallogly said he found no evidence of formal thought disorder during his assessment.

He told the court that there were three limbs to psychosis and that Mr O’Connor displayed none of them, including hallucinations or persecutory delusions.

The court heard that in a report prepared in July, Dr Gallogly had expressed the view that Mr O’Connor lacked capacity, with the caveat that he was then “clearly psychotic and paranoid”.

However, he stated that by May 2026, his clinical opinion had changed, with Mr O’Connor having engaged with treatment and medication.

The psychiatrist described Mr O’Connor’s presentation as “complicated”, noting that it would be unfair to him to overlook the complexity of his circumstances. However, he said he did not consider the accused to have a primary intellectual disability.

Dr Gallogly told the court, having considered the case in its entirety, he was satisfied that the accused was fit to be tried under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.

He said Mr O’Connor’s abilities may have been reduced as a result of substance misuse, but concluded that he had the capacity to plead to the charge.

“Mr O’Connor understands the nature of the charge,” said Dr Gallogly.

He added that the defendant had the capacity to instruct his solicitor when matters were explained to him and had an understanding of evidence, proof and witnesses.

While acknowledging that Mr O’Connor had cognitive disadvantages, Dr Gallogly said he was capable of making sense of the proceedings before the court.

“Overall, I do not consider that this individual has a mental disorder,” he said.

During cross-examination by barrister for the defendant, Edmund Sweetman, the psychiatrist accepted that he had not received a July report before preparing his own report.

He agreed that another expert, Dr Karen Humphries, had access to considerably more information than he had when conducting his assessment.

However, Dr Gallogly disagreed with the suggestion that the material available to him was “bare bones”, maintaining that the records he reviewed were detailed, albeit not as extensive as those available to other clinicians.

The psychiatrist accepted that medical records from other doctors and psychiatrists may have assisted in helping to assess the defendant within the Irish system.

The court also heard that Dr Gallogly conducted his assessment via video link, which lasted approximately one hour and 15 minutes. Dr Gallogly said that psychiatry was “a science of rapport” and involved listening carefully to what patients say.

He noted that, unlike some other branches of medicine, psychiatrists do not always have the benefit of brain scans or blood tests.

The court was told that in-person assessments are preferable, with Dr Gallogly stating that he had been conducting remote assessments since 2013 and remained confident in the opinions he had formed in this case.

Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Humphries gave evidence that, while Mr O’Connor had an understanding of certain aspects of the criminal justice process, the approach required when communicating with him would need to be adapted due to his cognitive difficulties.

The court heard that Mr O’Connor had suffered a significant childhood head injury, with Dr Humphries noting there was a risk that misunderstandings could arise during legal proceedings.

She explained the distinction between moderate and severe intellectual disability, outlining that professionals consider IQ scores, social functioning and a person’s ability to complete everyday tasks when carrying out assessments.

Dr Humphries referred to the definition of significant intellectual disability contained within the Mental Health Act, which includes incomplete development of the mind, significantly impaired intelligence and social functioning, and may be accompanied by aggressive or seriously irresponsible behaviour.

She said she met Mr O’Connor on two occasions, with the court hearing that previous assessments had shown that his ability to communicate could be mistaken for a higher level of understanding than he actually possessed.

She stated that his cognitive profile meant that questions often required further explanation and rephrasing.

Dr Humphries said her opinion remained that Mr O’Connor did not meet the criteria to be fit to plead.

During cross-examination by counsel for the prosecution, James Kelly, the court heard that much of the historical information relied upon by Dr Humphries had come from objective reports.

The court was told that Mr O’Connor had been misusing drugs and had absconded from a community placement before Dr Humphries first assessed him.

Dr Humphries noted that he later appeared more relaxed while in custody and while receiving medication. She stated that individuals can often function better once underlying mental health issues are addressed.

Judge Sinéad Ní Chúlacháin ruled that Mr O’Connor was fit to stand trial.

Following the hearing, counsel for the prosecution, informed the court that the defendant wished to plead guilty to an amended indictment.

Mr O’Connor pleaded guilty to one count of producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury during the course of a dispute or fight, contrary to Section 11 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990.

The court heard that the offence occurred on January 19, 2025, at Ballywaltrim, Bray, Co. Wicklow, where it was alleged that Mr O’Connor produced a white metal bar in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person.

Mr O’Connor also entered a plea of guilty to one count of affray, contrary to Section 16 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended.

It is alleged that, on the same date and at the same location, Mr O’Connor, acting with others, used or threatened to use unlawful violence, conduct which would have caused a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their own safety or that of another person.

Senior counsel for the accused, Paul Murray, stated that his client had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He added that he had been due to make a bail application on behalf of the defendant, but now wished to seek an early sentencing date.

“The court is now aware of the medical evidence, which will be used in mitigation,” said Mr Murray.

Judge Sinéad Ní Chúlacháin adjourned the matter until June 26 for sentencing.