A RETRIAL has been ordered after two brothers, Warren Dumbrell (36) and Jeffrey Dumbrell (30) had their convictions for murdering Christopher Cawley overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Both men were jailed for life by Mr Justice Paul Carney in June 2008 after being found guilty by a jury at the Central Criminal Court of fatally stabbing Mr Cawley (36) in the stairwell of flats at Tyrone Place, Inchicore, on October 29th, 2006.
The Court of Criminal Appeal, with the Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, presiding, sitting with Mr Justice Liam McKechnie and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, yesterday set aside the conviction of the Dumbrell brothers for murder, holding that the verdict of the jury in the case had been unsafe.
Lawyers for both men argued that the trial judge had “erred in law and in fact” by failing to discharge the jury during the course of the trial, in circumstances where the possibility existed of the jury being “biased as against the accused” men due to “adverse publicity” attaching to a lecture delivered by the trial judge during their clients’ trial.
The lawyers for the men argued in the appeal court that statements made by Mr Justice Carney during the course of the Dumbrells’ trial at a lecture in the law faculty at University College Cork, “coupled with the ensuing publicity” and the “particular circumstances of the case”, were such that there was “a real risk or likelihood” that the jury was prejudiced.
It was argued before the three-judge appeal court that this speech contained references to issues including the recent level of fatal stabbings.
The appeal court heard lawyers for the men argue that statements made by the judge at another venue, coupled with “the ensuing publicity” and the “particular circumstances of the case”, were such that there was “a real risk or likelihood” that the jury was prejudiced.
Delivering its judgment in the case, the appeal court held the brothers’ argument “to be well founded” and set aside their conviction for murder.
Mr Justice Murray said “full written reasons” for the court’s decision would be given at a later date.