Defence asked for jury to be discharged over judge’s summary claims

A MAJOR legal row broke out in the Eamonn Lillis murder trial when lawyers for the accused asked for the jury to be discharged over claims that the trial judge, Mr Justice Barry White, was pushing them towards a verdict of murder.

Defence barrister Brendan Grehan SC, launched a scathing attack on the manner in which Mr Justice White had summarised the evidence in the case. The exchange occurred on the 12th day of the trial in the absence of the jury during requisitions by lawyers for Lillis after the six male and six female jurors had been sent out to consider their verdict.

Mr Grehan accused the judge of being “partisan, unbalanced and highly selective” in his summing up of evidence and closing speeches by lawyers for the prosecution and defence. Lillis’s barrister claimed the effect of such action was directed at the jury to bring in a verdict of murder against his client.

The criticism of the judge’s address to the jury is likely to form the basis of any appeal by Lillis against his conviction for manslaughter. Mr Grehan said the judge had sought to link the accused’s lies at the time of his wife’s death with subsequent lies he told to gardaí, his lover, Jean Treacy, his daughter and the jury.

Mr Justice White pointed out there had been a number of contradictions in what Lillis had said to different people about the events which led to the death of Celine Cawley. However, Mr Grehan replied there were also “frailties” about the evidence of witnesses like Ms Treacy and Lillis’s daughter.

“Every single item selected was against the accused and against the fact that he might be innocent,” the barrister said. It had resulted in the jury being given evidence that was “twisted in a particular light”. Mr Grehan pointed out a number of incidents in which the jury had been provided with “incomplete detail”, including important forensic evidence.

The judge strongly refuted any suggestion that the lies of the accused amounted to corroboration of guilt. But Mr Justice White said he was entitled to assess lies in terms of Lillis’s credibility.

At the start of his submission, Mr Grehan reminded Mr Justice White that under the Constitution, an accused party was entitled to be tried by a fair and impartial judge.

Mr Grehan said he had become “very uneasy” on the previous afternoon when the judge began his summary of the evidence. He claimed such a feeling was confirmed the next day when it became very apparent that the jury were not “going to get a balanced summary”.

Mr Grehan said it had the effect of totally undermining the defence. He added: “I waited and waited and waited in vain for balance to be restored.”

Under the Irish legal system, judges were supposed to be givers of the law and not deciders of facts who might weigh matters against one particular party. Although judges could comment on matters, they had to be restrained or balanced, said Mr Grehan.

In a strongly-worded submission, he claimed the protection of individuals in jury trials should not be usurped in a particular manner where juries could feel “driven towards a particular verdict”.

Mr Grehan also accused the judge of taking away “in a quite extraordinary manner” a number of verdict options that he had earlier signalled would be available to the jury by the suggestion various manslaughter findings could only be made “in theory”. The barrister said the judge had concluded his summary of the case for reasons entirely beyond him with a reference to the book of evidence which would lead the jury to speculate that there was other relevant evidence “out there”. Mr Grehan said he had no alternative but to ask for the jury to be discharged as it would be impossible for the court to rebalance the situation.

He also complained that it was “somewhat novel” for the judge to insist that all 12 jurors had to be in agreement on what type of manslaughter the accused would be convicted, if such a verdict was being considered. Mr Grehan said he knew of no legal authority for such a ruling.

However, the judge replied that it would be “totally illogical if the jury return a verdict of manslaughter on different grounds”.

Mr Justice White said he had no intention of discharging the jury.

However, he recalled them to clarify a number of issues raised by Mr Grehan.