Special Report: Family waited seven years for justice - and doesn't want others to face same ordeal

Olivia Dunleaâs sisters, Anne and Amanda, with their mother Ann in 2018. Picture: Michael Mac Sweeney/Provision
The sister of a devoted playschool teacher and mum who was stabbed six times in her bed before her duvet was set on fire as she lay there paralysed from her injuries has called for changes to the justice system after the killer dragged them through the courts for seven years.
Olivia Dunlea, 36, an adored mum of three, was viciously slain by her then-partner of less than three months, Darren Murphy, 42, at her home in Passage West, Co. Cork, on February 17, 2013.
Murphy later admitted killing Olivia but denied murder, claiming that he had been âprovokedâ, saying that Olivia was seeing another man.
Phone records later proved that this was a lie, but the defence of provocation, which essentially blames the victim for their own death, was used twice by Murphy and his lawyers in a bid to have his charge reduced from murder to manslaughter, which carries a lighter penalty.
Oliviaâs sister Anne said it was immediately clear that âthat manipulative monsterâ had killed her sister; that he only admitted it when the bloody evidence was stacked against him; and that he only ever showed remorse when a jury walked into court.
Read More

Olivia had collected Anne and her newborn daughter from hospital earlier that day and promised to be back âat the crack of dawnâ to see her tiny niece.
The precious photos taken on February 16, just hours before their nightmare began, are the only images Anne has of Olivia with her youngest daughter.
Anne received a missed call from her sister at about 1am. When she called her back, her phone was turned off. âOliviaâs phone was never off and she would never ring me at 1am so I rang his [Darren Murphyâs] phone and the whole story started,â explains Anne.
âHe was hysterical, he put on a good act. He said they had an argument at her house, he went home, then someone rang him and said that her house was on fire.
âStraight away I jumped out of the bed and went over there.
âThe house was on fire. I had missed the whole show of him trying to get into the house. At that point, he was leaning on the fence with crocodile tears, looking traumatised.
âBut it hit me straight away that something wasnât right.â
Anne immediately suspected Murphy. Olivia had never had a fire in 36 years of life and if she had had an argument with Murphy, she would have been âheartbrokenâ and have gone âstraight overâ to Anneâs house to stay for the night.
Murphyâs clothes were on inside out and back to front that morning. He told Anne that was because he had pulled them on quickly as he was running out the door towards the fire.
But they werenât his going-out clothes, they were a tracksuit and jumper, which Anne thought was odd.
âI kept questioning him because it didnât add up,â she said.
âAnd he just roared into my face to âF-offâ. The guards brought him into the back of the squad car to tell him they had found Olivia. He was sitting in the back seat, saying he âcouldnât believe itâ. He kept trying to ring her and to get back into the house.
âAll this rubbish. How someone could put on that show after doing what he did is horrifying.
âThe poor girl didnât stand a chance.â

What Murphy actually did that night was stab Olivia six times in the head and neck.
He then set fire to her duvet when she was still alive but paralysed due to her injuries. He also lit a fire in the kitchen downstairs.
Professor Marie Cassidy, the State pathologist, said that Olivia was still alive when the fire started because 24% carbon monoxide was found in her lungs, suggesting that she was breathing in the fumes.
Prosecuting counsel Thomas Creed, said in court during the first trial that Murphy could have called emergency services to try to save her. But instead he left, drove her car back to the Rochestown Inn, a pub they had been to earlier that night, collected his own car and threw her keys in a stream to get rid of evidence because he had âdetective shows playing in his headâ.
Murphyâs lies began to unravel when the clothes he said he was wearing that night, and gave to gardaĂ, did not match those pictured on CCTV.
GardaĂ arrived to his house with a search warrant and he cracked.
âIt was only then that he admitted it because he had no choice,â says Anne.
âHe didnât admit it out of guilt.
âHe was after hiding the clothes under the decking in the back garden. He put his shoes in the attic.
âHe stabbed her six times so Iâd say the clothes were blood-stained.
âApparently he broke down when they said to him that the clothes werenât the right clothes.â
Anne says that she and her family were convinced from the beginning that Murphy was responsible for their beloved Oliviaâs death.
He was always lurking around Olivia like a hulking shadow through their brief relationship, calling to their motherâs house whenever Olivia went to visit, waiting for her after work and even sitting in his car outside her house all night keeping watch â a detail the family learned at one of the three trials.
âGardaĂ told us relatively quickly that they were preparing a file for the DPP. It was around the time that her body was released,â says Anne.
âIt was horrific. I canât put into words what that time was like. We didnât get to see her. It was a closed coffin. We never got to see her or say goodbye or pick her clothes for her to be laid out in.
âWhen someone dies you should be able to do those things and have your time to say goodbye. We got none of that.
âAnd everything was gone from the house. The kids literally had nothing. When youâre that age all you want is your mum and your stuff and they lost both. Everything was destroyed. All they had were the clothes on their backs.â
Murphy told gardaĂ that he attacked Olivia in a jealous rage when she told him that she was seeing someone else.
âEven if she had, it gives him no right to do what he did, but she hadnât.
âThat was heartbreaking. To drag her character through the mud like that.
âEspecially with the kind of person that she was. Olivia saw the good in everyone, even when she shouldnât have.
âShe lived for her kids. She was just lovely, very quiet and family orientated.
âSo saying that she was with men and everything. It was a disgrace.
âAnd Olivia couldnât defend anything said about her.
âSaying that he was provoked is a joke.
âHe gave the poor girl an awful death, he really did, and then he tried to destroy her character.â

Murphy made the Dunleas endure three trials and two appeals as he tried to have his sentence reduced from murder to manslaughter.
âThe first trial we were shellshocked,â says Anne.
âHe was sitting on the bench right opposite us and didnât bat an eyelid. He looked straight at us, sitting back with his arms stretched over the bench. He wasnât holding his head in shame or anything.
âBut when the jury came in heâd put his head in his hands.
âAnd he didnât take the stand once in three trials. He didnât have to prove his innocence; we, the prosecution, had to prove his guilt.
âAnd all the chances he had to appeal and have retrials were horrific. We were in complete shock.â
Anne Dunlea now wants the law of provocation to be changed as she feels Murphy should not have been able to lean on the defence twice and torment her family for seven long years of trials and re-trials.
âWe were told that the law of provocation hasnât been changed or amended since hanging was legal in Ireland,â says Anne.
âIt really needs to be revamped, the whole justice system does, because youâd really be ashamed. This shouldnât be happening.
âIt was a black and white case. He admitted doing it.
âHe didnât call for help that night.
âHe savaged her and tried to hide it and only broke down in tears when he was caught. He didnât do that out of heartbreak for Olivia.
âSo it was very unnecessary what her family and her kids had to go through with three trials and two appeals.
Anne says that Oliviaâs children are doing well despite enduring such trauma.
But every time Murphy appealed his sentence â and whenever he appeals it to the parole board in future, which he is legally entitled to do from this year â it plunges Oliviaâs children and wider family into the horror of it all over again.
But the children, Anne says, is what has pulled them all through.
âTheyâre brilliant kids, theyâre a credit to her.
âThey have her ways, she was a very gentle, loving person, and they have her sense of humour as well. So sheâll never be really gone with them here.â

Darren Murphy used it to appeal his murder conviction twice, his legal team claiming that the law â which essentially allows a victim to be blamed for provoking their own death â applied to his case.
Legal experts say that the defence has often been used in a gendered way to protect male power and to blame the victim in domestic abuse cases â with real or imagined infidelity often identified as the âprovocationâ.
Dr Fiona Donson, director of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights in the Law School in University College Cork, said that the defence was originally âabout chivalry and the right to defend honour".
âWhether we still need it in modern times is questionable and thereâs a strong argument to get rid of it,â she says, adding that any such moves must be carefully considered.
Ireland is the only common-law jurisdiction which asks the jury to subjectively apply the defence â to ask whether the defendant, with all their idiosyncrasies, would feel provoked in the situation to kill.
In other jurisdictions, such as the UK, it is applied objectively by asking the jury to consider whether a reasonable person would feel provoked.
If the defendant can prove to the jury that they were subjectively provoked into homicide, the murder charge can reduce to manslaughter in Ireland.
Some legal experts say that the subjective element of the law makes it particularly difficult to explain to a jury, which can lead to verdicts being appealed.
The late Mr Justice Paul Carney, who was the first judge to convict Darren Murphy for Olivia Dunleaâs murder, once called the defence âa graveyard for judgesâ because appeal courts so frequently overturned the verdict in provocation cases.
A member of the Bar told the
 this subjective standard for the defence was particularly problematic.âWhere the lack of clarity or confusion comes into it is the fact that it is a subjective situation,â they say.
âWhen someone says âI was provokedâ, the law as it stands in Ireland, unlike in the UK, says that you must look at it from a subjective point of view, you must look into the defendantâs mind and decide whether or not he was provoked.

âIn England itâs different, you look at it from an objective standpoint, so the jury would look at it from a standpoint of 12 ordinary people and ask â would they be provoked?ââÂ
When the law of provocation was first used, hanging was still legal, some judges say, so a defence of provocation was necessary to save someone from the gallows and commit them to prison instead. âBut as we donât have hanging anymore itâs probably somewhat obsolete and thatâs why an objective standard would be preferable,â says the member of the Bar.
âJurors sometimes get confused when youâre trying to explain to them about trying to look into the mind of the accused with all their foibles.
âAnd the only way to appeal a conviction for murder is if a judge didnât explain something properly to the jury.âÂ
On balance, the member of the Bar said they believe there âprobably is still a place for provocation but it should be objective not subjective as it has been in England for some time.âÂ
Dr Donson of UCC agrees that the law of provocation needs to change, but she does not expect that change to come anytime soon.
âProvocation is extremely problematic in our jurisdiction," she says.
âMultiple experts have put pressure on the legislature to reform this law butâs fallen on deaf ears.
âChanging the criminal law is never a priority unless something happens and thereâs a public outcry,â she says.
In New Zealand, the defence was abolished âovernightâ after an angry public demanded reform when a man was acquitted of murdering his partner, but such a reaction has not happened here.
Applying the defence objectively in English and Welsh courts has still caused some confusion, says Dr Donson, warning of the danger of reflexively dropping the defence without carefully considering what other defences would be available to someone who deserved one.
âIn a provocation case, the defendant is not disputing that they did it. Theyâre saying why they did it in the hope that a murder charge will be dropped to manslaughter so they go from a mandatory life sentence to a discretionary one.
âThe law is quite complex and hard to explain.
âItâs a recognition of the frailty of the human psyche.
âBut in case law from the UK, when a long-abused woman kills her partner thereâs often a delay â like smothering him when he slept.
âAnd according to the law of provocation, it should not be triggered by revenge or with reflection.âÂ
Another difficult aspect of the law, and one which the Dunleas felt keenly, is the fact that the defence blames the victim for their own violent death.
Another problem with provocation, says Dr Donson, is that it can be very unpredictable and arbitrary â its success depends on whoâs in the jury, who the lawyers are, and how sympathetic or not the defendant and victim seem to the jury.
It can also make trials last longer as additional evidence is presented and debated.
But she says that reform of this defence in Irish common law is desperately needed because Ireland is already âbehind the curve". She adds: âBut we need to be reflective and be careful how we do it.
âThe courts are built on a very adversarial process and thereâs not a lot of space for empathy. Maybe we need to rethink the criminal justice system from beginning to end.â
Seven years, three criminal trials, and to appeals later...
Darren Murphy was first found guilty of Olivia Dunlea's murder at the Central Criminal Court in 2014.
But that conviction was quashed on appeal when the judgeâs instructions to the jury on the defence of provocation were challenged.

The jury in a retrial did not return a unanimous guilty verdict in 2017.
But a third trial in the Central Criminal Court found him guilty again in 2018 and sentenced him to life in prison.
Murphy again appealed that verdict on the grounds of provocation.
He also appealed on the grounds that the prosecution provided a "bad character reference" â calling an ex-girlfriend to testify in court that he had been controlling and violent in their relationship.
In a criminal trial you cannot attack the character of the accused because they have a presumption of innocence and previous convictions cannot be presented to the Jury.
But Murphy "threw down this shield on his character" when they questioned a witness eliciting favourable character references, referring to him as a "gentle giant" and making him appear somewhat vulnerable.
This enabled the prosecution to seek to redress this character imbalance and provide their own character witness â an ex-girlfriend who testified that he was controlling and violent.
The Court of Appeal in March ruled that this was legal and reasonable and that the defence of provocation was âwithout substanceâ.
The Court of Appeal, therefore, rejected both appeals and upheld the murder conviction in March â seven years, three criminal trials, and two appeals after the murder.
1. Law of provocation: This defence was used by Darren Murphy and his legal team to appeal his conviction twice. Many judges, lawyers, and the Law Reform Commission have called for changes to this common-law defence used widely in murder trials.
2. Exclusion zones: Anne Dunlea and her family would also like to see exclusion zones â like those imposed on sex offenders, or barring orders like those used in abusive relationships â to be imposed on murderers. This, she says, would spare the victimâs family â particularly Oliviaâs children in this case â from the further trauma of seeing their loved oneâs killer near their home. This concept has been called for by Sinead OâLeary who was brutally stabbed in an attack that killed her best friend Nichola Sweeney in Rochestown, Cork, just kilometres up the road from where Olivia was killed.
3. Longer jail terms for murder: Murphy is technically eligible for parole this year after serving seven years in jail and although Anne says that a new parole act, which would see the minimum jail term for life extended from seven to 14 years is some improvement, she thinks that taking someoneâs life should mean life in prison for murderers.
4. Less escorted day release trips for murderers: Olivia Dunleaâs family was horrified to hear that Darren Murphy was back in Oliviaâs previous hometown of Passage on escorted day release to visit a grave last year. âHe was back to see his mother in Marymount who was dying during the trial which is one thing,â says Anne. âBut then he was back in passage to visit a grave too. Visiting a grave is a luxury. We were horrified that he could do that. It should not be allowed.â