A man’s conviction for murdering his drinking companion in a Limerick city pub six years ago should be overturned because the jury was not correctly instructed about his claim of self-defence, his lawyers have told the Supreme Court.
Mark Crawford (46), formerly of Quarry Road, Thomondgate, is serving a mandatory life sentence for murdering Patrick “Pa” O’Connor (24) by stabbing him six times, piercing his heart and neck, at Fitzgerald’s Bar on Sexton Street on July 7th or 8th, 2018.
Crawford pleaded not guilty to the murder, but a jury unanimously rejected his claim that he acted in self-defence out of fear he was going to be attacked by O’Connor.
The September 2020 trial at the Central Criminal Court heard the men met for the first time the previous day and had been taking cocaine together on July 7th. The prosecution argued there was nothing to justify Crawford’s use of force following a row between the pair over payment for cocaine.
The sentencing judge described the fatal attack as an act of “madness fuelled by drink and drugs”.
On Thursday Crawford’s lawyers submitted to a five-judge Supreme Court that a 1972 judgment setting out the common law defence of self-defence in cases of fatalities was too narrow to encompass this case.
Eoghan Cole SC, instructed by Aonghus McCarthy Solicitors, submitted an accused, in seeking to claim self-defence, must have a “genuinely held” belief that it was necessary to use force.
If a jury finds this belief was genuinely held, he said, it should then take into account the accused’s perception in considering whether his use of force was reasonable.
If an accused believed he was under deadly attack and responded genuinely based on that perception, he was entitled to an acquittal, counsel said. If the level of force used in response to a perceived scenario was “objectively” more than was necessary, a verdict of manslaughter should be returned, he added.
The jury must be told to consider the circumstances “as perceived by the accused” when deciding whether the level of force used was reasonable, he said. He contended that the trial judge’s charge to the jury did not set out self-defence correctly and that a retrial was therefore warranted.
John D Fitzgerald, for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), said there was evidence here of a “background tension” and of people standing up before the incident, but there was “no evidence” supporting a belief of a knife.
While the question of believing a danger exists was a subjective one, the issue of reasonable force was different, he said. There was a very clear factual distinction between a decision to use force and the subsequent level of force used, particularly if it leads to someone’s death, he said.
Following a short meeting between the judges, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the court wanted to inquire further into the relevance of a section of the 1997 Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act about the justifiable use of force.
While the legal system was adversarial, he said, the court had a “wider responsibility” and must consider unintended consequences. The judges asked the parties to submit written submissions on this point within four weeks.
The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Crawford’s appeal against his conviction last March. His lawyers had submitted the trial judge wrongly advised the jury about the issue of self-defence.
The Supreme Court decided last July that the case contained a matter of public importance regarding the subjective circumstances that should be taken into account when a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary.
- See our new project Common Ground, Evolving Islands: Ireland & Britain
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here
