Hung jury in trial of man who admitted killing girlfriend

Jury unable to decide if Darren Murphy guilty of murder or manslaughter of Olivia Dunlea

Olivia Dunlea from Passage West, Co Cork.
Olivia Dunlea from Passage West, Co Cork.

The jury in the trial of a man who admitted killing his girlfriend is unable to decide whether he is guilty of murder or manslaughter.

After seven hours and 13 minutes of deliberations, the five women and seven men said they could not overcome their disagreement.

Darren Murphy (40), of Dan Desmond Villas in Passage West, Co Cork, pleaded not guilty to murdering Olivia Dunlea at her home in Pembroke Crescent on February 17th, 2013.

Darren Murphy: pleaded not guilty to murdering Olivia Dunlea at her home  on February 17th, 2013.
Darren Murphy: pleaded not guilty to murdering Olivia Dunlea at her home on February 17th, 2013.

He pleaded guilty to her manslaughter but his plea was rejected and he has been on trial at the Central Criminal Court for the past 2½ weeks.

READ MORE

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy thanked the jury for their service and remanded Mr Murphy until June 26th when a date for a new trial may be set.

During the trial, the jury heard Mr Murphy and Ms Dunlea had been in a relationship for about four months.

In interviews with gardaí, Mr Murphy revealed that he stabbed her during an argument. He told gardaí he “lost it” and “snapped” after she told him to get out of her house because another man was calling over.

He stabbed her in the neck six times, the fatal wound penetrating her spinal canal, set fire to her house, and left.

The jury was asked to consider whether he was provoked by Ms Dunlea to the point where he lost all self-control.

Mr Justice McCarthy explained that if he was provoked, the appropriate verdict would be one of manslaughter.

This is the second time Mr Murphy has gone on trial for Ms Dunlea’s death. He was convicted of her murder in 2014 and sentenced to life imprisonment but that verdict was quashed on appeal.

The successful appeal was made on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in his explanation of the definition of provocation to the jury.