Jury advised to ‘exercise caution’
One of the witnesses was Garda Bernard Rohan. He interviewed Wayne O’Donoghue on January 5. This was to fill out a questionnaire gardaí had about his movements the day before, when Robert disappeared.
Garda Rohan said O’Donoghue was “quite relaxed and there were no visible signs of tension”.
Justice Carney interrupted his reading of the testimony at this point to tell the jury they would be given typed copies of O’Donoghue’s statements and transcripts of the video interviews.
He stressed how they should approach the evidence.
“Until this trial is over you are as much a judge of the Central Criminal Court as I am, and accordingly you have to act judicially,” he said.
“That means when dealing with this material you approach it in three stages.
“First, was that said? No one disputes that any of these things were said. Secondly, what does it mean? When you have satisfied yourselves that something has been said and you know what it means, you move on to the third stage. This is where you say to yourself: ‘it was said and we know what it means, but is it true?’ You must carry out that approach in relation to the material.
“You can accept some parts of the statements and not others.”
He added the jury could also accept some parts of evidence given by “live witnesses” and not others.
Later, Justice Carney referred to the statement O’Donoghue gave to gardaí on January 16, after he admitted to his father that he had killed Robert.
“Mr Murphy asked you to give significance to Wayne O’Donoghue saying ‘I am a murderer’ [in this statement]. Sometimes people use words in a technical sense, and sometimes they use words in a popular sense.
“I do not believe for a moment that he meant ‘I have killed somebody and present in my mind were all the ingredients of murder as required by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964’.”
He told the jury to “exercise caution” when considering this part of the statement.
After reading the testimony of O’Donoghue’s girlfriend, Rebecca Dennehy, he referred to “a full day of watching video evidence”.
He told the jury: “You will have individual typed copies of all that material, and if you want to watch the videos again you will be able to do that.”
Justice Carney finished his readings with the evidence given by the two pathologists, Dr Marie Cassidy, who conducted the post mortem on Robert, and Professor Jack Crane, who appeared for the defence. He told the jury that was all the information he wanted to draw their attention to.
He stressed he had by no means read the testimony of all the witnesses.
He said the jury “could take the ball and run with it” if they felt strongly about something said in testimony, but which “the professionals” had not called attention to.
“I am now going to give my ‘preemptive strike’. You will note I have been reading from a document,” he said, adding it would be “intelligent” to ask for either it or transcripts of individual witness testimony.
“...If you make any such request at any time, the law will require me to say ‘no’.
“You are required to try the evidence of the case presented and cross-examined, and such admissible documents as are sent into the jury room.”
He said the law takes the view that between the 12 jurors, they would be able to assess the evidence.
“You will be taking with you this document, called an ‘issue paper’. This sets out on the left the charge against the accused, and the box on the right is for the verdict.”
After filling in the verdict, the jury foreman would then sign the issue paper on behalf of all the jurors.
“Going into the box on the right are the words ‘guilty’, and if you write that word you will find the accused guilty of the crime of murder. What is also capable of going into the box is ‘not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter’,” he said.
“It’s very important the formula for that is right. There have been consequences where juries have got them wrong.
“What is not open to you to write are the words ‘not guilty’, because the accused has admitted unlawful killing.
“Now, it seems to me that what the prosecution are saying is that on the basis of what you have been given in admissions from [the accused], when looked at in conjunction with the medical evidence, the case is there for you to find a verdict of murder.
“They are also saying, in assessing the credibility of the accused, you are entitled to look at the ‘cover-up’.
“It seems to me that is the prosecution case, and what the defence are saying to you is that on the medical evidence you should not be satisfied of the intent required for murder.
“It is established they are also saying to you that the accused was provoked into a momentary loss of self-control, and that reduces the case of murder to manslaughter.
“The onus of proof always rests on the prosecution, and never shifts to the accused.”
He said it was for the prosecution “to satisfy all 12 of you beyond reasonable doubt” that their case was accurate.
“It also rests on the prosecution to negate the case that the accused was provoked.”
Justice Carney had one last direction for the jury.
“Madam foreman and members of the jury ...I want to make it clear that in a situation where there are two versions of events open to you, you are bound to accept the version more favourable to the accused, unless the prosecution has satisfied you to a standard beyond reasonable doubt, all 12 of you.”
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
