Murphy Manslaughter Trial Vedicts

magpie

Anyone else slightly concerned about the conviction of Dermot Laide for manslaughter and his subsequent sentencing to 4 years in Portlaoise?

Although not a lawyer, my understanding of the Irish justice system was that it was a case of "innocent until proven guilty". The judge in this case himself said that there is no proff that the blows delivered by laide killed Murphy, but that his actions escalated the conflict which lead to his being beaten to death by 6 (unidentified) persons. Surely to be convicted of manslaughter you must be proven to have caused the death accidentally (as opposed to murder). From my reading of the case there is no proof that Laide caused the death of Murphy.

Also, with regard to the 2 year sentences for Violent Disorder handed out to Mackey and Laide, and 9 month sentence handed out to Ryan, these were justified by the judge as they were "Clearly out to start trouble", and yet he chastised the defendants for questioning the character of the instigator of the fight who had been thrown out of another establishment recently for headbutting someone, and who threw the first punch in this incident. Using the judges logic, if you are in a bar and a fight breaks out around you, you will be liable to a 2 year jail sentence for hitting someone back.

It seems apparent to me that this trial has been something of a witch-hunt, and an attempt to prove that the legal system does not favour the middle-classes by setting out for convictions regardless of evidence.

Compare and contrast with this story from today's Irish Times:

Three acquitted over assault which left man brain-damaged

Three Cork men have been acquitted of assaulting a student, who has been left in a vegetative state since the incident in Cork city centre two years ago, after a judge ruled that statements they were alleged to have made to gardaí were inadmissible.

Two of the men were also acquitted at Cork Circuit Criminal Court on the charge of violent disorder. A third man, William St Leger, pleaded guilty to violent disorder.

Robert Carlile (21), from Grangewood Court in Douglas; Alan Harte (21), from Leamlara Close, Togher; and William St Ledger (20), from Woodview, Pinecroft in Douglas, earlier pleaded not guilty before Cork Circuit Criminal Court.

All three were charged with assault causing serious harm to Mr Denis Franklin from Pallasgreen, Limerick, at the junction of Kift's Lane and Grand Parade on February 17th, 2002, and of violent disorder on the same occasion.

The court heard today that there was no evidence against Mr Carlile and Mr Harte on either charge or on the charge against St Leger of assault causing serious harm.

St Leger was re-arraigned before the jury on the charge of violent disorder and pleaded guilty.Judge Patrick Moran remanded St Leger on bail for sentencing on April 30th.

The jury heard evidence during the trial that an incident began in Kift's Lane on the night in question. It involved two men fighting with a smaller individual.

It was alleged that a group gathered on the side of the shorter person and the two involved in the original incident, Mr Franklin and his friend Mr Rory O'Neill, then left the lane.

There were then two incidents of violence on Grand Parade - these two incidents involved Mr Franklin and Mr O'Neill.

Mr O'Neill crawled underneath a car to protect himself.

Mr Franklin had no place to hide and was savagely beaten and kicked. He suffered massive head injuries. An ambulance took Mr Franklin to hospital but due to the injuries he sustained is now in a "permanent vegetative state".

Sparks

I'm a bit concerned that so many people are trying to defend people who admitted to being, at the very, very least, accessories to manslaughter. It's like the whole country's attitude towards accepting responsibility for your actions has gone out the window.

magpie

No, they admitted to being involved in a fight with Murphy who at a later stage was killed by an unidentified group of 6 people. Not the same thing at all.

Meh

Originally posted by magpie
Although not a lawyer, my understanding of the Irish justice system was that it was a case of "innocent until proven guilty". The judge in this case himself said that there is no proff that the blows delivered by laide killed Murphy, but that his actions escalated the conflict which lead to his being beaten to death by 6 (unidentified) persons. Surely to be convicted of manslaughter you must be proven to have caused the death accidentally (as opposed to murder). From my reading of the case there is no proof that Laide caused the death of Murphy.

The prosecution didn't argue that Laide threw the fatal punch/kick, they argued that he acted in "joint concert" with whoever did. This is the same legal concept that means someone who didn't actually pull the trigger can be convicted of murder, if they supplied the gun, loaded the bullets and held down the victim.

The only problem I have with the verdict is that more of the attackers weren't on trial. It's a pity that Laide didn't give evidence himself and name some names. If he expects our sympathy, he should at least come clean about who else was involved.

Sparks

"a later stage" seems to imply a lack of connection. What Laide admitted to was knocking him down and kicking him. He may not have delivered the fatal blow, but he certainly bears responsibility for Murphy's death.

magpie

Laide didn't admit to kicking him, or knocking him down from my reading of the evidence... what he did admit to was holding him and giving him a 'few good digs', his evidence then states that after punching Murphy he walked away in disgust that he had been drawn in to a fight. There is no mention of kicking him on the ground and no evidence that Laide was one of the 'six', so how Laide acted 'in joint concert' with those who killed Murphy is beyond me.

The only reason Laide appears to have been convicted of manslaughter is he is the only one who admitted punching Murphy in the face, if he hadn't done so the evidence connecting him with the manslaughter would be minuscule. The amounts of alcohol imbibed by the key witnesses made their testimony shaky to say the least. Mackey and Ryan were convicted of Violent Disorder as they admitted kicking Murphy in the Stomach and trying to punch him respectively. Andrew Frame had charges against him dropped as he did not admit to throwing any blows.

So what does this tell us? That the convictions were based purely on the statements of the accused and that the witness testimony and other evidence was insufficient to convict. Had Laide calimed he had not laid a finger on Murphy he would have walked away scott free, but as he owned up to punching him he gets 4 years for manslaughter. Seems fair doesn't it? Mackey and Ryan got lesser sentences as they owned up to lesser attacks. Presumably had anyone admitted to shoving Murphy in the queue for the exit (which sparked off the whole thing) they would have got 6 months on the same principle.

I still contend that this trial was a sham, the sentencing is arbitrary and it will never stand up in a court of appeal (I note Judge White refused initial appeal, presumably because he is aware of the tenuous convictions the court produced, very much under his direction it should be added).

Nuttzz

Those 4 went to the cops and told them they were involved in the fight, now 3 of them are doing time, I am not defending their actions but if they had of kept their mouths shut would they be doing time?

magpie

if they had of kept their mouths shut would they be doing time?

My point exactly

bonkey

Originally posted by magpie
My point exactly

What is? That if you admit to the crime you shouldn't be punished?

Or that there's something wrong with punishing those who admit to a crime, whilst not punishing those who don't admit to one, and whom you can't prove are guilty?

jc

Sparks

I am not defending their actions but if they had of kept their mouths shut would they be doing time?

So are we deciding if they took the best approach to evading just punishment, or deciding if they received just punishment for their actions?

magpie

Or that there's something wrong with punishing those who admit to a crime, whilst not punishing those who don't admit to one, and whom you can't prove are guilty?

I think the issue at stake here is what is the crime to which they confessed? Being involved in a fight basically, certainly not manslaughter and violent disorder might be pushing it a bit. Where is the line between that and assault?

My contention is that those who were convicted confessed to much lesser crimes but were convicted of more serious offences because there was absolutely no evidence against anyone else. the sentences handed out were in order of 'seriousness'.. in other words if someone had punched Murphy 3 times they would have got 6 years. This is clear scapegoating.

The people who killed Murphy got away with it, whereas those who were involved in the initial stages of the fight and whose consciences dictated they go to the police wound up being jailed for the death of Murphy.

I note that everyone here seems to be quite convinced that Laide, Ryan and Mackey were responsible for Murphy's death, but on what evidence? Reverse snobbery is insufficient motive to condemn guys in their early 20s to having the crap beaten out of them in Portlaoise for 4 years.

Sparks

Originally posted by magpie
My contention is that those who were convicted confessed to much lesser crimes but were convicted of more serious offences because there was absolutely no evidence against anyone else.

So why, if there was such a serious "frame-up" going on, is the judge being complimented by all and sundry, including those on Laide's side, for running the case fairly and competently?
Or could it be that Laide painted himself in the best light he could find when he admitted the extent of his responsibility?

I note that everyone here seems to be quite convinced that Laide, Ryan and Mackey were responsible for Murphy's death, but on what evidence?

Well, the fact that they were in a fight with him which escalated to his being kicked to death is pretty much conclusive that they share at least some responsibility, at least to me. Plus, Laide was the one who knocked him to the ground and he got in a kick, according to the evidence.

Nuttzz

Violent Disorder is more than 3 people fighting and I think it is just one step below a riot charge.

Looking at other cases these 3 got the norm for sentences here, however I do think they were too light IMO, but they are the norm.

It sounds to me that the cops decided "ahh sure here's 4 lads who said they were involved, lets do them and we're sure to get a result"

What would be your opinions on mandatory sentences for serious crimes
I would like to see them introduced for:

Murder
Manslaughter
Rape
Sexual Assualt
Child Abuse

magpie

So why, if there was such a serious "frame-up" going on, is the judge being complimented by all and sundry, including those on Laide's side, for running the case fairly and competently?

They were hoping for a non-custodial sentence. You will note today that laide's family have declared the trial a miscarriage of justice and both Laide and Mackey are appealing.. hardly a sign of a fair trial.

Well, the fact that they were in a fight with him which escalated to his being kicked to death is pretty much conclusive that they share at least some responsibility, at least to me.

So let's say you're in a pub, someone throws a punch at one of your mates, you throw a punch at him, an all-out brawl evolves (including people you have never met before) and the guy who threw the first punch ends up dead. Are you saying that you would think it fair for you to go to prison?

Laide was the one who knocked him to the ground and he got in a kick, according to the evidence.

No, according to Laide's testimony, which is the only admissible evidence that categorically shows he punched Murphy, he punched him twice and left him standing. He did not kick him on the ground

ambasite

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm a bit concerned that so many people are trying to defend people who admitted to being, at the very, very least, accessories to manslaughter. It's like the whole country's attitude towards accepting responsibility for your actions has gone out the window.

country's attitude shaped & moulded by Independent Newspapers / Irish Times / RTE, looking out for their 'own'.

Sparks

Originally posted by magpie
They were hoping for a non-custodial sentence.

Of course they were. What's your point?

You will note today that laide's family have declared the trial a miscarriage of justice and both Laide and Mackey are appealing.. hardly a sign of a fair trial.

That the convicted are claiming that it's all a mistake? Gosh, yes, that's unexpected.

So let's say you're in a pub, someone throws a punch at one of your mates, you throw a punch at him, an all-out brawl evolves (including people you have never met before) and the guy who threw the first punch ends up dead. Are you saying that you would think it fair for you to go to prison?

That's not the same situation as the Laide case.

No, according to Laide's testimony, which is the only admissible evidence that categorically shows he punched Murphy, he punched him twice and left him standing. He did not kick him on the ground

That's not the only evidence as to his actions though, is it?

magpie

What's your point?

My point is they only said the trial was being carried out well by the judge in order to try and keep in his good books. It doesn't make much sense to call the judge a biased halfwith if you don't want the book thrown at you.

That's not the same situation as the Laide case.

In what ways does it substantially differ?

That's not the only evidence as to his actions though, is it?

What other admissable evidence was there?

ambasite: country's attitude shaped & moulded by Independent Newspapers / Irish Times / RTE, looking out for their 'own'.

I would contend that quite the opposite ocurred. Rather than trying to get 'their own' off the hook, the media drummed up speculation about whether the defendants would get away with it because of their priviledged background. This lead to a large number of people (counting some people here by the looks of things) who felt they should be convicted purely because of their background.

The Limerick scumbag who walked free giving the press the fingers after knifing someone in a council estate attracted less coverage than 4 middle class boys who were in a fight that ended in an accidental death.

While I'm at it, why are the crew of the ambulance that refused to take Murphy to hospital not up on charges? One of the contributory factors to his death was inhalation of blood, which can be very easily stopped by a trained medic of any description.. instead he was left bleeding by the road for 15 minutes while bystanders had to convince the ambulance to take him. had he been brought to hospital sooner it is quite possible that no charges of any description would ever have been brought.

bonkey

Originally posted by magpie
Surely to be convicted of manslaughter you must be proven to have caused the death accidentally (as opposed to murder). From my reading of the case there is no proof that Laide caused the death of Murphy.

Note : caused the death and killed are two entirely seperate things.

The judge concluded that - as you said yourself :

but that his actions escalated the conflict which lead to his being beaten to death by 6 (unidentified) persons.

If this conclusion is backed by the evidence, then the finding of manslaughter is perfectly correct.

As to the others who were also sentenced....I'd be willing to say that they perhaps got off too leniently, rather than saying that Laide got treated too harshly...although my guess is that the distinction was made in terms of who was determined to have escalated the row, rather than who participated in it.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by magpie
My point is they only said the trial was being carried out well by the judge in order to try and keep in his good books. It doesn't make much sense to call the judge a biased halfwith if you don't want the book thrown at you.

I guess you should have been watching questions and answers last night then. Makes no sense to say the judge was fair and above board after the verdict is in by your logic, yet that's what their family priest was happily saying. And I've heard nothing from the Laide family saying the judge wasn't following the law.

In what ways does it substantially differ?

Laide didn't land a punch, extract his friend and then do nothing more - Laide knocked him down and put the boot in. There's the difference.

What other admissable evidence was there?

103 statements by witnesses.

This lead to a large number of people (counting some people here by the looks of things) who felt they should be convicted purely because of their background.

Not guilty of that.

While I'm at it, why are the crew of the ambulance that refused to take Murphy to hospital not up on charges? One of the contributory factors to his death was inhalation of blood, which can be very easily stopped by a trained medic of any description..

I thought you said ambulance crew? Or are you saying there was an EMT there with them?

had he been brought to hospital sooner it is quite possible that no charges of any description would ever have been brought.

Nope. "Contributing factor" does not mean "sole cause". It means it was one of several things which combined to kill him - and getting beaten and kicked in the head would have been sufficent on it's own, I'd imagine.

uberwolf

Originally posted by ambasite
country's attitude shaped & moulded by Independent Newspapers / Irish Times / RTE, looking out for their 'own'.

I would suggest that the readerships of the Independent and Times are different people. I would be disgusted by someone kicking someone on the ground. Punching someone is entirely different (not on ground). The defence of alcohol consumed should be completely inadmissable.


On the topic of the EMT, my memory of the coroners report was that the kicking he received was the cause of death, and that inhalation of blood was involved but not THE cause.

magpie

Well, fair comment guys, but I'm a little surprised that I'm the only person here who feels distinctly uneasy about the verdicts.

Sparks

Originally posted by magpie
Well, fair comment guys, but I'm a little surprised that I'm the only person here who feels distinctly uneasy about the verdicts.

You're not.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl

4. Everyone should be treated the same
I'm afraid they shouldn't. The fact that people believe that these guys should get the same treatement as hardened thugs from Limerick makes my head spin. If a guy whos carried a knife for years, stabbing and killing people is up for trial versus a bunch of guys who made one mistake for 15 seconds one night

Manslaughter is mansluaghter, whether you went around beating everyone up for the last 2 years or not, you have been involved in the death of an innocent man and found guilty.

My problem with this issue case is that is very obvious from what I have read that there was others who hit Brian Murphy that night, and weren't even trialled.

Witnesses said they didn't see who these people were, maybe because they were one of them!!

We will never know the truth.

Sparks

Originally posted by daveirl
3. Aren't we all whiter than white
I'm young and I'm male, I've been in my fair share of fights, like so many of the people I know, Now fair enough, none were remotely as brutal as the assault outside Anabels, but all the same, fights happen and you have to pay the price. But the way people are speaking about this you'd swear butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.

I'm not-quite-so-young-any-more and male, and I've never been in a fight outside of the receiving end of school bullying many years ago. I've never thrown a punch at someone outside of the dojo. I sure as hell never kicked someone when they were on the ground, and I never went looking for fights. None of this is true of these four. And it's not a long list of saintly virtues - it's just civilised behaviour. You don't beat people to death. We rather demand it of people. And oddly enough, it's not that hard a rule to adhere to. (And please don't tell me it was some form of self-or-other-defence, because the line between self-defence and assault is crossed when you kick someone you've knocked to the ground).


As to the sentences, they were consistent, so you can't argue that they got a raw deal. In fact, the sentences should have been heavier, but that's a function of the way the legal system looks at the charge, rather than anything specifically to do with these four.

And as for the argument that they got a raw deal because there are others out there who weren't charged with the crime, I think we've covered that.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Originally posted by daveirl
the guy who gets in one fight and makes a mistake.

A description which does not tally with the judge's statements on the sentences.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Villain

Originally posted by daveirl
I'm afraid it's not. If I go around repeatedly looking for fights and getting in them and getting convictions for various violent offences, I should and do get a tougher sentence than they guy who gets in one fight and makes a mistake.

AHH but you never said the other person had convinctions!!!

Thats 2 different story's obviously if someone has been convicted and is reoffending they should get a longer sentence!.

Sorry if I miss understood you, just theres a lot of people

whos carried a knife for years, stabbing and killing people

around Ireland who have no convinctions!!

Sparks

Originally posted by daveirl
Dermot Laide didn't kick anyone. He unched a guy twice.

In the head. For those who haven't had martial arts or medical training, punching someone in the head is not as safe as hollywood would have you believe.

Secondly, and not for the first time today, I've got to ask - are the Laides going to sue John Bowman for correcting the Laide family priest on Q&A last night by saying that Laide did put the boot in and had admitted it? And will they sue the priest for agreeing with him after having spent several hours talking with Laide?

Do you think I should be locked up because I'm a danger to society or do you think myself and Dermot Laide should watch our friends have their heads beaten in.

Didn't read the bit about the line, huh?
Let me put it this way - the law says you can defend yourself. It also says when the attacker is down and on the ground, putting the boot in is assault.
Being part of a group and putting in the first kick means that the outcome of the group's actions is something you share culpability for.