Jury left in ‘hopeless state of confusion’, court hears

The jury in the trial of a man jailed for life for the murder of his neighbour were left in a “hopeless state of confusion” on the issue of self-defence, the Court of Criminal Appeal has heard.

The three-judge court yesterday heard submissions in an appeal against conviction brought by Brendan O’Sullivan, aged 28, who in Nov 2010 was sentenced to life imprisonment by Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy after a Central Criminal Court jury unanimously found him guilty of murdering Leslie Kenny, aged 27.

O’Sullivan had denied murdering Mr Kenny in the garden of his home on O’Gorman St, Kilrush, Co Clare, on Jul 29, 2009.

The court heard that O’Sullivan shot Mr Kenny, who had 82 previous convictions, with a double-barreled shotgun after first confronting him over threats he had made to slit his daughters’ throats, shoot down his back door, and put petrol in his letterbox.

Neighbours described seeing O’Sullivan standing on his garden bench and shouting at Mr Kenny, who lived a few doors down: “Come down here and we’ll sort it out.”

The court heard evidence that O’Sullivan shot Kenny twice before reloading and shooting him twice again.

Counsel for the applicant, Michael O’Higgins, told the court that the appeal would focus on the trial judge’s charge to the jury on the issue of O’Sullivan’s self-defence case and when a verdict of manslaughter arises.

He said O’Sullivan contended that Mr Kenny was a “very volatile person” who had made threats against him and his family and had a “reputation” in Kilrush.

Mr O’Higgins said the first thing that the court ought to bear in mind was that a case of self-defence is available even in circumstances where the accused intended to cause serious injury or kill the deceased.

He said that although the trial judge “just about” properly identified the basis on which the jury could outright acquit or convict O’Sullivan, as far as the “middle ground” went, he argued that the trial jury were “left in a hopeless state of confusion”.

Counsel for the State, Michael Durack, told the court that although the applicant “constantly raised” the self-defence issue, he could not possible argue such a defence on the facts of the case.

Presiding judge Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said the court would reserve its judgment and would return “as soon as possible”.