Evidence of student’s killing at club unsafe, court told

LAWYERS for the only man jailed for the killing of student Brian Murphy outside Club Anabel at Dublin’s Burlington Hotel in August 2000 submitted yesterday that some of the statements of his co-accused were highly prejudicial to him and went well beyond the prosecution’s case against him.

The Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) was told that the outcome of a process by the trial judge to edit the statements of Dermot Laide’s co-accused at their trial and certain media coverage prior to and during the trial were among a number of grounds of appeal by Mr Laide against his conviction.

The three-judge court is hearing appeals by Mr Laide (23), from Rossvale, Castleblayney, Co Monaghan, and by Desmond Ryan (24), Cunningham Road, Dalkey, Dublin.

The appeals are being opposed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In addition to a four year sentence for manslaughter, Mr Laide received a concurrent two-year term when found guilty of violent disorder.

Mr Ryan and Sean Mackey (23), of South Park, Foxrock, Dublin, were both sentenced for violent disorder at the time and another man, Andrew Frame (22), of Nutley Lane, Donnybrook, Dublin, was acquitted of violent disorder.

In the Laide appeal, which is being dealt with first, it is submitted that the trial judge failed to ensure that he received a fair trial because of a flawed process of editing the co-accused’s statements relating to the incident outside the club.

It is also claimed, among several grounds of appeal, that the jury’s verdict against Mr Laide is unsafe in light of prejudicial media coverage prior to and during the trial and prejudicial coverage in two newspapers of submissions made in the absence of the jury.

During his lengthy submissions yesterday, Michael O’Higgins SC, for Mr Laide, said his client had sought a separate trial but had been refused.

He submitted it was wrong of the trial judge to say that because something stemmed from a single incident that it followed as both a matter of logic and justice that the matter must be tried together.

He submitted that the offending portions of the co-accused’s statements incriminating Mr Laide should have been excised and the fact that there were not rendered the jury’s verdict infirm.

The trial judge had opted for a “Mr A” formula in which “Dermot Laide” was replaced by the phrase “Mr A” in a statement of Mr Mackey’s, in order to protect Laide’s rights.

It was submitted that the clear implication of the conduct of the hearing was that the jury were informed that “Mr A” referred to Mr Laide. The result was in direct contradiction of the editing process ordered by the trial judge.

The task facing the jury was particularly difficult. They had to consider events of three and a half years previously. They had heard evidence from a very large number of witnesses about an incident which lasted some number of seconds, involving a considerable number of young people, many of whom were drunk.

The evidence at times had been confusing and contradictory, disordered and uncertain, occasionally vague and often unclear.

Because the jury’s task was so difficult, it was likely they found it extremely tempting to rely on a co-accused’s statement as evidence against Mr Laide, if only to put some order on the confusing mass of material presented to them.

The introduction of “Mr A” in the proceedings would have added considerably to that danger.

The hearing, before Mr Justice Brian McCracken, presiding; Mr Justice Roderick Murphy and Mr Justice Michael Peart, continues today. Mr Justice McCracken indicated yesterday that at the conclusion of the hearing, judgement would be reserved.