Convictions quashed over trial ‘defect’

THE Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the convictions and sentences of two men for “reckless endangerment”.

The charges against cousins Fergal Cagney and Ronan McGrath arose from an incident in Dublin during which another man was hit with a blow around the ear, fell onto the road and died later in hospital.

David Langan, 19, from Castleknock, Dublin, died from brain stem death in August 2000.

There will be no retrial.

In the first consideration by the Supreme Court of the nature of “reckless endangerment”, the five-judge court voiced concerns about what Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman described as the “vague” and “open-ended” nature of the offence.

The court indicated the DPP should have brought a charge of assault instead.

The endangerment charge required complex instructions not given to the jury, the court said. The jury were not told the recklessness must be intentional, creating a “substantial risk” of death or serious injury.

It was allowing the appeal by Mr Cagney, Kilteely, Co Limerick, and Mr McGrath, of Deerpark Road, Castleknock, against their convictions and 15-month sentences arising from the incident near Portobello Bridge, on August 25, 2000. Mr Langan died five days later. It was alleged that both men, then aged 19 and 18 respectively, intentionally or recklessly engaged in conduct which created a substantial risk of death or serious harm to another.

The trial heard Mr Langan had earlier knocked Mr McGrath into the shutters of a bar in Dublin city, and that Mr McGrath and Mr Langan were at one point squaring up to each other with Mr Cagney trying to keep the peace.

Mr Cagney later told gardaí he had struck Mr Langan in self defence when Mr Langan came towards him with his fists raised. Mr Langan fell to the road and never regained consciousness.

Both men were cleared of manslaughter but convicted by a majority jury of reckless endangerment. They were bailed because of the issues raised in their appeals.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, while rejecting the appeal, said the case raised an issue which should be determined by the Supreme Court — if the endangerment offence could be construed to cover the case.

Mr Justice Hardiman said an accused must have foreseen the risk their conduct would bring about the relevant result and chosen to proceed nonetheless.

In this case, neither the prosecution nor trial judge referred to the need to establish intent, the judge said. That was “a grave defect” in the trial and so he would quash the convictions.