Victims' feelings are not at the centre of the criminal justice system, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
Mrs Mary Murphy spoke for many victims of violence when she expressed her frustration with the legal system on Monday. Her husband added: "The trial process is not about truth. It is about shamelessly avoiding it when it is not on your side."
The close relatives of people who are killed, along with the victims of sexual and violent assaults, have often spoken of how the trial of the alleged perpetrator has often been a second trauma for them. Our system of justice is not easy on victims, but there is little to suggest that other systems are any easier.
All systems of law are based on society investigating and punishing crime, rather than allowing individuals to pursue retribution. This inevitably means that victims take a back seat to the representatives of society, who have an obligation to ensure fairness to all involved, including the accused.
The Irish system of prosecuting crime, like others in the common law world, starts with the Director of Public Prosecutions or equivalent official, who prepares a case on behalf of the people based on the evidence collected by the police.
The accused enjoys the presumption of innocence, which means the onus is on the prosecution to prove his or her guilt. The task of the defence is to prevent such a finding, and uphold the presumed innocence of the accused. Lawyers for the sides occupy a central role, with the judge as arbitrator.
This appears to favour the accused, but the defenders of this system point out that the individual accused is confronted with the full might of the State, and his or her rights must be protected.
They point to the miscarriages of justice that have occurred when this does not happen, and the justified outrage of victims sets the agenda for the trial.
In the inquisitorial system that pertains in most European countries the judges occupy a central role, asking the questions and sometimes directing the investigations.
The accused does not enjoy the presumption of innocence. In some European countries, like Belgium, for example, witnesses argue with each other in court. The judge then decides who he (or she) believes.
In the Irish common law system the evidence collected by the police for the prosecution may not be complete for various reasons. Some people who give statements to the Garda may not tell the truth. Others may not remember very clearly what happened. Yet others may not give any statements at all. This can all lead to a situation where some perpetrators of crimes are not brought to justice.
Mr Murphy said on Monday: "Six people were involved (in the attack). There has been one conviction in connection with Brian's death."
Four people were prosecuted, and one of them was acquitted by direction of the judge because there was no real evidence against him. There was no evidence given during the trial that any of the remaining three had kicked Brian Murphy in the head, though the evidence of Prof Harbison, the State pathologist, was that such a kick was the most likely cause of death. Clearly gardaí were unable to obtain evidence as to who had delivered the fatal kick.
Because of the presumption of innocence, the defence does not have to prove anything. In fact in this case the three convicted of violent disorder, including Dermot Laide who was convicted of manslaughter, all made voluntary statements to gardaí following the report of the death of Brian Murphy, which is unusual. If people choose not to make such statements the onus is on the Garda to find evidence against them, and on the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This is inevitably difficult for victims and their relatives, especially if they may know, or feel they know, something of what happened during the incident.
Mr Murphy will have expressed the frustration of many when he said: "There must be several people out there who saw everything that happened that morning. How many so-called respected and respectable members of the community saw it?"
His wife said: "I cannot contemplate forgiveness until I know the truth and those responsible for Brian's death have acknowledged their part in it and make known the part others played in the killing."
She also expressed her frustration with the way in which some of the evidence was dealt with, and apparently contradicted. The trial was frequently interrupted by legal argument about the admissibility of certain evidence. In particular, the statements made by the accused men were edited to ensure that they did not implicate each other.
There are good reasons why, in a trial involving more than one person, one accused cannot implicate another. If this were allowed one person's defence could become the prosecution of another. But it must be difficult for victims and relatives to hear the exclusion of evidence they consider to be relevant.
The family also felt very hurt by the delay in the case coming to trial. Some 3½ years have elapsed since Brian Murphy was killed. Over a year of that delay is due to technical difficulties that arose due to a challenge to procedures in another case.
The remaining 2½ years is longer than average, but not unheard of. It was a complicated case involving four accused. About 120 people were interviewed, and 700 statements taken, to be sifted for usable evidence. The preparation of the prosecution case, therefore, took time. There are some delays in the Circuit Criminal Court, but they run to months rather than years.
The family also criticised the conditions in which they sat in the court, where they were surrounded by the families of the accused and the media. There were, and are, no special facilities for the victims of crime in the courts, and there should be.
Organisations like Victim Support have attempted to raise some of the concerns voiced by the Murphy family. Many remain to be addressed. But there is little such groups can do to lessen the family's feeling that the truth of what happened on that night has not been fully revealed by the legal process.