Man found not guilty of murdering parents and brother but guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility
(Left to right) Evan O’Connor, Mark O’Connor, and Louise O’Connor had sustained a combined 139 stab wounds.
A 32-year-old man who stabbed his parents and younger special needs brother to death at their Co Louth home has been found not guilty of their murders but guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility by the unanimous verdicts of a Central Criminal Court jury.
The panel accepted the evidence given by two psychiatrists that Robert O'Connor was suffering from a relapse of schizophrenia when he killed the three members of his family and that the partial defence of guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility under section 6 of the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 would be an appropriate verdict.
The State had submitted in their closing speech that verdicts of guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility were more in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence in the case and also reflected the harmony of both psychiatrists.
Whereas lawyers for Robert O'Connor had asked the jurors to consider finding him not guilty by reason of insanity so that he could get the "proper mental health treatment" he needed and "not be misdiagnosed for a fourth time".
In his closing speech, Michael Bowman SC, defending, told the panel that Robert O'Connor was previously misdiagnosed and, it seemed, on subsequent occasions his illness was put down to the consumption of drugs. The special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the barrister told the trial jury, carried with it the hope and expectation that the defendant would be "properly treated in an appropriate environment for the first time in his life".
Robert O'Connor (aged 32), of Drumgowna, Louth Village, Dundalk, Co Louth, had pleaded not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, or guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility to the triple murder of his mother Louise (aged 56), his father Mark (aged 54) and his brother Evan (aged 27) at their home between September 28 and 29, 2025, both dates inclusive.
The Central Criminal Court jury has been told that the defendant accepted he caused the death of the three victims, who had sustained a combined 139 stab wounds.
Robert O'Connor had told gardaí he stabbed his autistic brother Evan like a "blood bag" and later described in his interviews how his mother had asked him to let his younger brother go as he held them by knife point in their sitting room.
A pathologist testified that the majority of Evan's wounds were inflicted by his eldest brother while he was still alive.
Robert O'Connor, who was not maintaining his schizophrenia medication and using cocaine in the months before the three killings, told officers that he had a row with his parents over drugs, lost his head and only meant to kill his father and brother, but not his mother.
The jury of six men and six women spent four hours and eight minutes deliberating over two days before bringing in unanimous verdicts on each of the three counts.
After they had delivered their three verdicts, Mr Justice Mícheál P O’Higgins told the jury that this brought to an end their formal role in "what has been on any view a difficult and really very sad case".
The judge said it had been the most difficult and most sad of all for the O'Connor family; "for the deceased members that have gone to the next world and the remaining members of their family and their close relatives".
He said the panel had carried out a difficult task with great care and noted the question they had asked earlier on Wednesday. "For that we are very very grateful....this was not an easy trial and it had a significant impact upon your own lives and schedules and you turned up every day on time and that is very much appreciated".
Shortly after midday on Wednesday, the foreman of the jury handed up a note to the judge, which was read aloud to the courtroom. It said: "In the event that we accept that a mental disorder exists in relation to the special verdict of insanity, does the law provide any guidance as to whether we should consider the contribution of intoxication [from cocaine] in deciding if the conditions for the special verdict are met?".
In response, the judge told the jurors it was a matter for them to decide as to what degree of relevance and weight to attach to the intoxication factor.
Before the jurors left the courtroom for the evening, Mr Justice O’Higgins informed them that the next part of the process was the sentencing of Robert O'Connor, which was a process they were not involved in and reverted to the trial judge.
He added: "You have found diminished responsibility for these three tragic killings of the O'Connor family and that will be front and centre of the sentencing process". The presiding judge then exempted the panel from jury service for the next six years.
When the jurors left the courtroom, Ms Roisin Lacey SC, prosecuting, told the judge that time was required for the preparation of victim impact statements and in advance of that she would have to get directions from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to sentence. The prosecutor said the O'Connor family were anxious that matters move to the next phase as soon as possible.
The judge said he would have to consider counsel's submissions and the evidence at the defendant's sentence hearing, so there would be "another date for the delivery of the ruling". Robert O'Connor was remanded in custody until December 14 next, when his sentence hearing will take place.
Mr Bowman asked that an updated psychiatric assessment of the defendant be completed by psychiatrist Dr Fiona Toal for the next date, which was acceded to. The judge also directed that consideration be given in the preparation of the psychiatric report to enable the sentence hearing to proceed on the December date.
The panel had been told by Ms Lacey in her opening speech that the "battleground" between the prosecution and defence in the trial was whether Robert O'Connor was insane at the time.
Whilst both expert psychiatric witnesses were of the view that guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility under section 6 of the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 would be appropriate verdicts, they differed on whether the defendant qualified for the special verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity under section 5 of the act.
Consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Fiona Toal, called to give evidence by the defence, testified that Robert did not know what he was doing was wrong and couldn't refrain from committing the act. She found that Robert met the criteria for special verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Whereas psychiatrist Dr Ronan Mullaney, for the prosecution, had told the trial that Robert met the criteria for verdicts of guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and did not meet the criteria for the special verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Dr Mullaney found the defendant had expressed remorse and his question to gardaí about "what kind of time" he might expect indicated "a good understanding of his role".
The three criteria for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 are that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or was unable to appreciate that what they did at the time was wrong or would have been unable to refrain from their actions.
In his charge to the panel following the three-week trial at the Central Criminal Court, Mr Justice O’Higgins said the psychiatric evidence in the case reduced the choice the panel had to one of two verdicts; namely not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.
Mr Justice O'Higgins said that if the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Robert was legally insane at the time of the killings, it was only then that they would go on to consider the alternative verdict of diminished responsibility.
The judge told the jurors if they were considering the possibility of a verdict of diminished responsibility, they must then ask themselves three questions; namely have the prosecution satisfied them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the killings; are they satisfied on the balance of probabilities the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder and that the mental disorder was such as to diminish substantially the defendant's responsibility for the killings.
"Was his mind in control or was the mental disorder in control at the material time?" asked the judge.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
