Evidence in Cork cold case 'insufficient' to prove murder, Noel Long's lawyers argue
In August 2023, a jury unanimously convicted Noel Long (pictured) of the murder of 54-year-old Mrs Sheehan, whose naked and bruised body was discovered in Shippool Woods, Co Cork, six days after she went missing in June 1981. File picture: Collins Courts
A Cork man jailed for life after a cold case review ended in the oldest successful murder prosecution in Irish history has argued that his conviction should be quashed, as there was not enough evidence to prove the intent of murder.
Barristers for Noel Long, aged 77, submitted to the Court of Appeal that the prosecution had failed to prove Long did anything more than assault victim Nora Sheehan with "slaps and punches" to the head and face.
Long, a former British Army soldier with an address at Maulbawn, Passage West, Co Cork, had pleaded not guilty to murdering Mrs Sheehan between June 6 and June 12, 1981, at an unknown location within the State.
In August 2023, a jury unanimously convicted Long of the murder of 54-year-old Mrs Sheehan, whose naked and bruised body was discovered in Shippool Woods, Co Cork, six days after she went missing in June 1981.
The trial, which began in July 2023, heard that a partial DNA profile generated from semen found in Mrs Sheehan’s body and preserved for decades matched DNA recovered from clothing taken from Long in 2021.
The jury accepted the prosecution’s case that all the evidence pointed to the “inescapable conclusion” that Mrs Sheehan, a mother of three, died at Long’s hands.
Long has 31 previous convictions spanning 50 years, including those for sexual offences, common assault, burglary and numerous road traffic offences in both Ireland and the UK.
Long has launched a bid to overturn his conviction for murdering the vulnerable Cork woman, arguing there was a prejudicial delay in bringing the case and that DNA evidence should not have gone before the jury.
During the third day of the appeal hearing, Long’s legal team also submitted that the trial judge, Mr Justice Paul McDermott, had erred by refusing to withdraw the charge of murder at the end of the evidence and following the evidence given on behalf of the defence by former State Pathologist Dr Marie Cassidy.
A submission was also made on the issue of how the jury were directed on the meaning of “serious injury”, as the trial judge told them that “serious” was to be given its ordinary meaning and it was open to them to infer whether there had been the intention to commit a serious injury to Mrs Sheehan.
The court heard that Mr Justice McDermott had contrasted serious injury with a minor trivial injury, giving the example of someone being pushed in the street who falls, cracks their head and dies.
The defence submitted that on the facts of this case, the force described by Dr Cassidy regarding the bruising to the face and scalp of Mrs Sheehan was clearly greater than the force in this example. However, it did not follow that the use of such force manifested an intention to cause serious injury, said the defence.
Defence barristers submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove Long did anything more than assault the victim with slaps and punches to the head and face.
It was argued that had the jury been told that “serious injury” had to involve something giving rise to a substantial risk of death, it would not have been open to them to convict on the charge of murder.
It was also submitted that the trial judge did not put the defence case properly to the jury, as he failed to draw their attention to the argument that if the victim died unexpectedly in the course of a physical/sexual assault, that in itself would have provided a motive to hide the body.
Counsel for Long, Lorcan Staines SC, said the trial judge had ruled that the issue of both causation and intention was a matter for the jury to decide, but counsel argued that the question was whether the jury could make that determination without the assistance of the court.
Mr Staines said that the deceased suffered blows consistent with being beaten around the head, but there was the possibility that she suffered a heart attack or her airways were blocked.
Mr Staines added it seemed likely that the body was dumped to prevent the discovery of the remains, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the intent of murder.
Counsel said that when the issue of serious injury is raised, it is very important that a clear definition of this is given to the jury. He argued that the trial judge had told the jury that “serious injury means what it says”, which did not assist the jury.
He reminded the court that the defence had said there was insufficient evidence to put Long at the scene, nor did the evidence show intent.
In response counsel for the State, Seoirse Ă“ DĂşnlaing SC, said that this was a circumstantial case without a cause of death.
He said the possibility that the deceased suffered a heart attack was entirely speculative, with a doctor saying there was no evidence of that. Mr Ă“ DĂşnlaing said it was most likely that the victim died elsewhere and her body was transported, so the jury had to look at the evidence that she did suffer injuries.
Concerning the trial judge’s charge to the jury, counsel said that his example of someone being pushed in the street was an example of an assault, while a push that causes someone to fall, where they sever an artery, would be an offence of manslaughter.
Concerning the issue of the trial judge putting the defence case to the jury, Mr Ó Dúnlaing said “there was no defence case”. He said the trial judge had summarised all the evidence in the case, making it quite clear what the defence was.
Mr Justice John Edwards, presiding over the three-judge court, said that judgment in the case would be reserved.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
