Coroner to reopen Murphy inquest

The Dublin City Coroner is to reopen the inquest into the death of Brian Murphy, the student who died outside Club Anabel in …

The Dublin City Coroner is to reopen the inquest into the death of Brian Murphy, the student who died outside Club Anabel in Dublin six years ago.

The inquest, which was adjourned in 2000 pending the outcome of the criminal trials in connection with his death, is listed for mention next Thursday and a date for the hearing may then be set by the city coroner, Dr Brian Farrell.

The State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, may be called to give her medical opinion during the inquest hearing.

Mr Murphy died following a fracas outside the Club Anabel disco in Ballsbridge in Dublin on August 31st, 2000. Four men were later charged with manslaughter and violent disorder. One of the accused was acquitted of all charges; two were convicted of violent disorder; and one man, Dermot Laide, was convicted of manslaughter and of violent disorder. The manslaughter charge was later overturned and a retrial ordered.

READ MORE

However, the DPP told the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court last month that a retrial would not now proceed.

This followed a statement by the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, that the injuries sustained by Mr Murphy were "relatively minor" and would not be expected to cause his death.

At Dublin City Coroner's Court next week, the coroner may decide to summon the four men who were acquitted of Mr Murphy's manslaughter as witnesses. Dr Farrell will also decide on whether a jury should be called for the hearing.

It is not automatic that the pathologists involved in examining the body or preparing the postmortem report attend the inquest. However, it is not uncommon for the coroner to ask the pathologist to attend to give evidence, so it is therefore possible that the medical report of former State Pathologist Prof Harbison may be read into the record, while Dr Cassidy could potentially be asked to give her opinion on Mr Murphy's cause of death.

It would then be possible for the legal representatives of the family to question the pathologist about this evidence.