Prosecution makes closing statement in Pearse trial

The fatal stabbing of a Google executive in Dublin last year was not an accident, not self-defence and not provoked but it was murder, a jury at the Central Criminal Court has been told.

Ms Isobel Kennedy SC, prosecuting, was giving her closing speech in the trial of Dane Pearse (aged 22) of Londonbridge Drive, Irishtown, Dublin.

Mr Pearse has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Dalkey man Mark Spellman (aged 26) on Londonbridge Road, Irishtown on August 4 2007.

“This attack was motivated by anger and revenge. There’s sufficient evidence for you to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder,” Ms Kennedy told the jury.

The court had heard that Mr Spellman was walking home from a work night out when he became involved in an altercation with the accused. This ended and there was testimony that they shook hands. Mr Spellman and his friends continued walking and Mr Pearse turned down Londonbridge Drive and went home.

However Mr Pearse came back out with a souvenir baton and ornamental knife and ran after the three men. Mr Spellman sustained fatal injuries from the knife and Mr Pearse told gardaí it was an accident.

“This man launched a ferocious, unnecessary, unprovoked attack on Mr Spellman,” said Ms Kennedy.

Mr Spellman’s friend Finbar O’Mahony said he saw a deliberate stab by the accused into his friend’s side and saw blood coming out onto a pillar. Ms Kennedy said this was backed up by forensic evidence; selatape lifts from the pillar containing Mr Spellman’s blood.

As the lifts were taken from the outside part of the pillar, she said, it contradicted the defendant’s story that Mr Spellman pushed him through a gate and that the knife must have gone into him when he landed on Mr Pearse.

“The pattern of blood indicated directional blood splashes from a bleeding wound,” she added.

She also reminded the jury of the evidence of ambulance personnel. Michael Carroll said Pearse told him he had been attacked and had “gone back to sort him out”.

Mr Pearse told gardaí that he did not realise he had stabbed his victim until later, but Ms Kennedy pointed to the state pathologist’s evidence that effort would have been needed to insert the knife and a greater effort needed to remove it.

There was a wound on each side of the body, one of which was 18cm deep, the length of the blade. The mark from the hilt of the knife was visible on the skin there.

“It went in all the way,” said Ms Kennedy. The other wound was 3cm deep but had gone into a rib, and more effort would have required to remove the knife from there, she said.

Ms Kennedy said it could not have been self defence because the three men were walking away from the scene and were no-longer a threat to the accused.

Mr Pearse told gardaí that he was afraid that they knew where he lived and he wanted to scare them, but Ms Kennedy said the jury would see from the map that his house could not be seen from Londonbridge Road.

“If one runs at a man, swinging a knife and bat, he is doing more than defending or scaring them. He is the aggressor,” she said. “His motive was revenge, not defence. He was the attacker.”

She explained that if it had been self-defence and that he had used more force than he honestly believed to be necessary, then it would be manslaughter.

“It was neither because there was no unlawful attack on Mr Pearse. He had no right to use any force,” she said. “He went out seeking to attack Mr Spellman. There had been shaking of hands. Instead of retreating, and staying at home, he sought out the deceased.”

Mr Pearse had denied that he wanted revenge after being embarrassed in front of his girlfriend when Mr Spellman had kicked him in the chest.

“I don’t think my girlfriend even seen him kicking me,” he told gardaí. But in an earlier interview he said she had seen him get a kick and run off, said Ms Kennedy.

Ms Kennedy explained that where a killing takes place under the influence of provocation, it is manslaughter, but there must be evidence the killer was provoked to such an extent that he lost control of himself.

“Anger, being, vexed, revenge or loss of temper aren’t enough,” she said.

“Evidence show a very angry man, who goes home, goes upstairs and arms himself. That’s the work of a man carefully calculating the situation, not one who has lost the head.”

She added that he had said he “genuinely thought” that if they saw him with the weapons they would run away. So there was thought, she said.

She went on to say that if there was provocation, then it couldn’t be an accident.

Ms Kennedy reminded the jury that Mr Pearse did not mention the knife in his first interview with gardaí, but told them he brought a baton, which they had found.

“I didn’t take anything else from the house,” he said, after bringing it back into his house, wrapping it in a tea towel and putting it in a drawer.

“You must assess the relevance of that omission,” she said.

She also drew their attention to the defendant’s own injuries, a self-inflicted knife wound to the arm, leg pain and a bruise and scratch behind his ear.

She said this conflicted with the statement he made that Mr Spellman was “smacking, pounding and mashing” his head on the ground after pushing him through the gateway.

She said that murder must include an intention to kill or cause serious injury, but that intention could be formed at the last minute, including at the moment of raising the knife or striking the person.

“Dane Pearse made a choice to bring the baton and knife and, at the very least, intended to cause serious injury,” she said.

The trial continues before Mr Justice Paul Carney.