Laide trial - Clear system of deposition is required
Central to this matter is the vexed issue of whether a system of depositions should now be introduced to allow evidence to be heard in court if a crucial witness was unable to give such evidence.
As it transpired, the manslaughter charge against Laide for the killing of Mr Murphy outside Anabel’s nightclub in Dublin on August 31, 2000, was dropped because of what counsel for the DPP described as “ongoing evidential difficulties” which could “not be overcome”.
Specifically, those difficulties arose because the retired State Pathologist, Professor John Harbison, was unable to testify as he is ill.
This scenario will undoubtedly have a profound impact on a number of other impending trials in which Dr Harbison would be a crucial witness.
Owing to his illness, legal history was made last month when Prof Harbison’s successor, Dr Marie Cassidy, was cross-examined on pathological evidence relating to the brutal killing of Rachel Kiely, using photos taken at the original post mortem conducted by Dr Harbison.
Due to ill health, he could not give evidence in the second trial of Ian Horgan, whose original conviction in 2002 for Ms Kiely’s murder was quashed in December 2004 when the Court of Criminal Appeal ruled it was unsafe and ordered a retrial.
Subsequently, 22-year-old Horgan was sentenced to eight years, six of which were suspended for time already served, after he was found guilty of the rape and manslaughter of the beautician at Ballincollig Regional Park in Co Cork.
Unsurprisingly, Dr Harbison’s inability to give evidence has triggered considerable debate in legal circles. In a significant development, Justice Minister Michael McDowell touched on the matter over the weekend when he was questioned about the anticipated development in the Laide case.
The minister stressed he could have “no hand, act or part” in relation to decisions of the DPP, who is totally independent of the Executive in the exercise of his duties. That said, however, he went on to make it clear that he is worried over Ireland’s lack of what he termed a “well-worked out system of depositions”.
While he was conscious of the “right of the accused to cross-examine” the minister emphasised that “if there is a witness with crucial evidence like the results of an autopsy, and he may fall under a bus or something, should we not have that evidence?”
The dramatic claims made by Laide in his emotional statement after being told by Judge Michael White he was free to leave the Dublin Circuit Court further serve to underline the importance of addressing this question.
While conceding that his behaviour on the night in question was unacceptable and also that he was guilty of violent disorder, Laide emphatically denied causing the death of Mr Murphy.
Discounting the illness of Dr Harbison as the reason for abandoning the case, he argued that a new statement by Dr Cassidy was the real reason why it was dropped. Claiming the reports of the two pathologists could almost be seen as describing different incidents, he asked if the Cassidy report had been produced at the time of incident whether anyone would have been charged with manslaughter.
Whatever the true explanation, the dramatic outcome of the Laide case will lend much weight to the line of argument expressed by Mr McDowell.
His call for a well-worked out depositions system for special cases is eminently practical and deserves to be supported.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
