Jury sent home for night in trial of man for supermarket killing

A jury in the trial of a 22-year-old Dublin man accused of murdering a supermarket raider has been sent home for the night having been deliberating for three hours and nine minutes in the Central Criminal Court today.

David Wilson (aged 22), of Marigold Avenue, Darndale denies murdering Paul Howe (aged 22) as he tried to make his getaway following an armed robbery at Supervalu on the Howth Road on October 8, 2008.

It is the prosecution’s case Mr Wilson stabbed Mr Howe of Glenshane Crescent, Tallaght, seven times as he attempted to climb over a wall in the car park at the rear of the store.

Earlier, the jury heard closing speeches by both the prosecution and the defence.

Paul Burns SC, prosecuting, reminded the jury of the old adage that two wrongs don’t make a right.

He said: "It was wrong and unlawful for Mr Howe to carry out that robbery of the store but it was also wrong and unlawful for Mr Wilson to stab Mr Howe; whatever the deceased had done earlier by the time he met his death he was an unarmed man."

The barrister reminded the jury they had heard evidence and seen CCTV footage which showed Mr Wilson walking away from Mr Howe and then walking back to stab him again; which indicated this was not a man acting in self-defence but a man acting in anger and aggression.

"This was an attack; Mr Wilson having attacked Mr Howe with a knife walks off and then goes back to attack him again." he said.

He urged the jury to be cautious when reviewing the transcripts of garda interviews noting people often make "self-serving statements".

He read the jury a portion of the interview where Mr Wilson had said he picked up the knife and stuck it in Mr Howe to calm him down.

"Does that make sense; would you stick a knife in someone six or seven times to calm them down?" he asked.

Witnesses gave evidence they saw Mr Wilson after the killing looking shocked and carrying the knife "gingerly" trying to get people to take it off him.

"It might well be that after murdering someone a person could be shocked at their behaviour that does not mean it is not murder," Mr Burns stated.

Brendan Grehan SC, defending, said it would be a travesty and the harshest possible verdict a jury could render to find the accused guilty of murder.

He described Mr Wilson as "an innocent bystander" guilty at most of an error in judgment and circumstances could have been very different.

The jury were told there were any number of possibilities: Mr Howe might not have pulled the knife and threatened Mr Wilson and instead of sitting in the dock Mr Wilson might be getting an award for bravery in apprehending a robber.

Mr Grehan SC, stressed that time was absolutely crucial in this case, the stabbing occurred in a matter of seconds as evidenced by CCTV footage.

"There is no chance for reflection - for considering should I do this or should I do that? - when somebody pulls a knife on you it's like going back to the cave age: you're thinking of self-preservation," he said.

Defence counsel stressed the only reason Mr Wilson chased Mr Howe was because he believed he had dropped the knife and the only reason there was a knife was because Mr Howe had brought it to the scene.

He urged the jury not to judge the accused too harshly and suggested that when somebody reacts as Mr Wilson did and commits an error in judgment it cannot be a case of murder.

The jury of seven men and five women will resume its deliberations tomorrow morning.