DPP defends handling of Murphy case

The Director of Public Prosecution, James Hamilton, has defended his handling of the Brian Murphy case

The DPP has defended his handling of the Brian Murphy (above)
case.
The DPP has defended his handling of the Brian Murphy (above) case.

The Director of Public Prosecution, James Hamilton, has defended his handling of the Brian Murphy case. Conor Lally, Crime Correspondent, reports.

Mr Hamilton has said there was sound legal precedence for providing State pathologist Prof Marie Cassidy with only limited medical records on which to determine cause of death of Mr Murphy (18), from Clonskeagh, Dublin.

Tánaiste and Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has also commented on the case.

He expressed confidence in Prof Cassidy, but said he would review the reasons why her initial cause of death findings differed to those of her predecessor Prof John Harbison.

READ MORE

"This issue raised in relation to the divergence of views is of course a matter of concern, but I want to look at the reports and see if there's an issue for me as Minister for Justice in relation to that issue."

He acknowledged that Prof Cassidy did not have access to the same level of material, such as X-rays of the deceased's brain, as had Prof Harbison. When asked his views about this, he said: "That's not a matter on which I'm in a position to comment."

Mr Hamilton's comments on the case were contained in a rare statement issued on his behalf by his office yesterday.

It read: "The question of furnishing Dr Marie Cassidy with the report of Prof Harbison in the context of the prosecution arising from the death of Brian Murphy was considered carefully by this office in consultation with prosecution counsel and having regard to a ruling by a trial judge in an earlier case in the Central Criminal Court.

"The Director of Public Prosecutions is satisfied that there was a good legal basis for not providing Dr Cassidy with Prof Harbison's report."

The statement drew attention to a legal precedence established in March of last year.

On that occasion a Central Criminal Court jury found Ian Horgan (22), Ballincollig, Co Cork, guilty of the rape but not guilty of the murder of Cork woman Rachel Kiely (22) in 2000.

In comments that could be applied to the Murphy case, Mr Justice Barry White said the fact that former State Pathologist Prof John Harbison became ill and was not able to give evidence was perhaps to Horgan's benefit.

He said the pathological evidence given by Prof Cassidy based on photographs was "less forceful".

It is believed that Prof Cassidy was unable to give evidence in the Horgan case based on Prof Harbison's work because such evidence would have amounted to hearsay evidence.

Like the Horgan case, Prof Harbison had carried out Mr Murphy's postmortem. He concluded that he died from swelling of the brain caused by facial injuries.

These were suffered during an assault by a group of teenagers outside the Burlington Hotel nightclub Anabel's in August 2000.

By the time the manslaughter retrial of Monaghan man Dermot Laide was due to take place last April, Prof Harbison had become too ill to give evidence.

Prof Cassidy was furnished with some evidence and, based on this, was asked to determine cause of death and present this evidence at Mr Laide's retrial.

She concluded Mr Murphy's head injuries were "relatively minor". She said they would not normally be expected to cause his death, which she attributed to the injuries and alcohol.

Mr Laide's retrial for manslaughter was abandoned as a result of the divergence in the pathologists' views.

However, at Thursday's inquest, Prof Cassidy dramatically changed her mind, saying that since being furnished with more evidence and hearing Prof Harbison's report, she agreed with his conclusions.

Prof Cassidy agreed when questioned by Dublin city coroner Dr Brian Farrell that not having access to Prof Harbison's report was "less than ideal".

Based on Prof Cassidy's revision of her evidence, Dr Farrell has sent the file back to the DPP. Mr Laide faces the possibility of being retried for manslaughter.