One death. Two findings.
Denis and Mary Murphy said they were “horrified” with the decision by the State to drop charges against Dermot Laide, the only person to be convicted of their son’s killing.
The decision not to proceed with the retrial comes after a new statement by Dr Cassidy which said that the injuries inflicted on Mr Murphy were “relatively minor” and “would not be expected to cause his death”. This was in direct conflict with what Prof John Harbison set down in his findings when he carried out the post mortem six years ago.
During the course of the manslaughter trial of Mr Laide in 2004, Prof Harbison said Mr Murphy had died from swelling to the brain due to facial injuries he received after he was kicked in the head outside the Burlington Hotel on August 31, 2000.
He said the facial injuries were caused by “considerable violence being inflicted on him”.
Dr Cassidy produced her statement based on a review of post-mortem photographs and other toxicology and histology results gathered by Prof Harbison. The report said: “The skull was not fractured and there was no evidence of bleeding into the skull cavity.”
The statement concluded that the head injury was likely to have been caused by alcohol-induced apnoea, or a stopping of breathing, resulting in his death.
The Murphy family questioned the validity of this evidence in calling the retrial to a halt. Mr Murphy said: “It seems to us that Dr Cassidy was handed the evidence on which she based her opinions some time last Friday. It seems extraordinary to us that, some way or another, she should come to a sound opinion in that short space of time. We know for certain that she didn’t see Brian’s body, she didn’t examine Brian’s body and our understanding also from counsel is that she didn’t see a photograph of Brian’s brain.”
Ms Murphy said that this evidence should have been heard in court: “Let the jury hear what she has to say, and let the jury decide, not some officials anonymously.”
But in a statement read outside the court, Mr Laide said that he believed that new evidence was the real reason for the dropping of the retrial, and not the inability of Prof Harbison, who is ill, to attend.
“I believe that if Dr Cassidy had produced such a report at the time of the incident it is questionable whether anyone would even have been charged with manslaughter,” he said.
Yesterday’s events have led to concerns that a number of other retrials could collapse because of the inability of Prof Harbison to act as a crucial witness.
Experts said this would be an issue in trials where cause of death is a contested issue.
Justice Minister Michael McDowell said he is examining how evidence can be preserved, in the case of a crucial witness not being available. He said it concerned him that the criminal justice system did not have a well-worked process of deposition whereby written evidence can be submitted and accepted in prosecution cases.
“If somebody carries out a vital function such as an autopsy, the fact that such a person would or would not fall under a bus, should not determine if a trial never takes place in the future,” he explained.
The defence’s right to cross examine a witness should be balanced out by the public’s right for justice, he added.
