A killer who beat a man to death should welcome the jury’s “charitable and merciful” manslaughter verdict “like a drowning man clinging to a life raft”, a judge has said.
As he sentenced Garret Smith to 13½ years on Monday, Mr Justice Tony Hunt said Edward “Liam” O’Sullivan was killed in his home where he should have been entitled to feel safe. The court heard that Mr O’Sullivan’s injuries were such that his family only recognised him by a tattoo and that a closed coffin was needed for his funeral.
Mr Justice Hunt said the jury had been “charitable and merciful” in finding Smith guilty of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis that he was too intoxicated to have intended to kill Mr O’Sullivan. The judge noted that Smith “accepts” the verdict, but he added that he “should welcome it like a drowning man clinging to a life raft”.
“How he could expect anything less than that, if he did expect such an outcome, is not perceived by me on the basis of the facts.”
Smith (35), of St John’s Park, Waterford, denied the murder of Mr O’Sullivan in the deceased man’s apartment at High Hayes Terrace, Kilkenny on February 6th, 2020. He was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He was also found guilty of violent disorder.
Before passing sentence, Mr Justice Hunt said Smith and others had been drinking for about 18 hours and the accused was probably abusing prescription medication. He was seen on CCTV at about 3am with Mr O’Sullivan at a Circle K garage where Smith was “repeatedly and visibly stumbling around the garage forecourt”.
Violent outbreak
Smith went to Mr O’Sullivan’s apartment where several visitors were engaging in “noisy socialising and drinking”, the judge said. There was a violent outbreak that prompted Mr O’Sullivan to produce a knife and tell everyone to leave.
He put the knife down but the “violent disorder flared up again” on the street, with Smith again involved. Smith then re-entered the apartment and inflicted the fatal injuries on his victim.
Rebecca Walsh told the trial that she saw Smith stamping repeatedly on Mr O’Sullivan’s head and face and punching him. She said his face was badly swollen and bleeding and that he was making a gurgling sound. Ms Walsh said she heard Smith say, “You’re a big man now without your friends”. She said she tried to intervene, but Smith threatened that the same thing would happen to her.
Mr Justice Hunt said he had to be circumspect about Ms Walsh’s evidence because it is unlikely that the jury had accepted everything she said.
“If they did, a murder conviction might well have followed,” he said, adding that the fact Smith had inflicted the fatal injuries was not in doubt.
The judge noted that Mr O’Sullivan lost many good years that he would be entitled to were it not for Smith’s actions. His family will have to live with the shock of his violent death and the trauma of the injuries he suffered.
“Their lives are irrevocably scarred and changed by the violence of Mr Smith,” he said.
This case, he said, fell into the lower end of the worst cases for manslaughter. While he had not used a weapon, Mr Justice Hunt said Smith had “availed himself of the liberal use of his feet, dangerous weapons in themselves especially when he was so intoxicated that he didn’t have the ability to form an intent”.
‘Clouded judgment’
Mr Justice Hunt said he took into account that the accused left the apartment along with everyone else when told to do so but “unlike everyone else” he opted to return to confront Mr O’Sullivan.
“The fact his judgment was clouded by intoxicants does not alter this particular fact,” he added.
The violent disorder shortly before returning to the apartment was an aggravating factor, the judge said, and he passed a six-year concurrent sentence for that offence.
Mr Justice Hunt said intoxication reduced the verdict of murder to manslaughter and was therefore already a mitigating factor and could not be counted again as a mitigating factor for sentencing. He quoted a judgment of the Supreme Court which states: “The culpability associated with killing another person by getting oneself into such a state where there are predicted consequences of labile emotions and violence, can be reflected in the sentence.”
The judge set a headline sentence of 16 years but considered Smith’s offer of a plea to manslaughter after the trial had begun along with testaments written by Smith’s partner and employer. These showed, he said, that Smith “is not an entirely bad person when sober”.
Smith’s claims of remorse, he said, “ring a little hollow” and he noted that the accused still says he has no memory of what happened. He accepted that the killing was “wholly out of character” but added that Smith’s previous convictions meant his record was not unblemished.
Having considered all factors, he sentenced Smith to 14½ years with the final 12 months suspended. Smith will have to engage with probation services and deal with his alcohol, drug and anger issues, he said.