Thursday, 28 Mar 2024

'Love rival' trial: Jury begins deliberations and told to consider circumstantial evidence 'with care'

The jury in the Tipperary “love rival” murder trial will begin its deliberations this afternoon after being told circumstantial evidence can be powerful, but must also be considered with care.

Ms Justice Eileen Creedon made the remark as she conducted her charge of the jury before it goes out to consider its verdict this afternoon.

The judge said the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence which it argues showed farmer Pat Quirke murdered his alleged love rival Bobby Ryan, a part-time DJ known as Mr Moonlight.

But she said the defence had argued this evidence was “not enough” to convict Mr Quirke of murder.

Ms Justice Creedon told the jury they would have to consider the weight of the evidence. She said they needed to be objective and dispassionate and must not be influenced by emotion, sympathy, anger or disgust.

“Circumstantial evidence can be powerful evidence, but you must consider it with care,” she said.

The judge also told the jury: “You have to be satisfied that not to find him guilty would be an affront to common sense.”

Mr Quirke (50), of Breanshamore, Co Tipperary, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Ryan (52) on a date between June 3, 2011, and April 2013.

The prosecution alleges Mr Quirke killed Mr Ryan so he could rekindle his affair with Mary Lowry, the widow whose farm Mr Quirke was leasing.

The jury has heard Mr Ryan disappeared after leaving Ms Lowry’s house at Fawnagown, Co Tipperary at 6.30am on the morning of June 3, 2011.

His body was discovered 22 months later by Mr Quirke in an underground tank on the farm, but the prosecution alleges this was a “staged” discovery.

The charging of the jury of six men and six women by the judge this morning was the last stage of the trial process before the jury goes out to deliberate. The case is now in its 15th week.

As part of her charge, the judge gave the jury a synopsis of the evidence in the case and also addressed them on issues of law.

She advised them there are only two possible verdicts open to them, either guilty of murder or not guilty.

At the outset of her charge, Ms Justice Eileen Creedon said it had been a long case and that if she left out some details, this did not mean they are not important.

She said it was up to the jury to decide the facts of the case and what happened.

The jury was told a transcript of the evidence was available to the judge and if at any time they wanted to be reminded of a piece of evidence, they could ask for this to be read to them.

Ms Justice Creedon said Mr Quirke had the right to the presumption of innocence.

She said that the starting point of their deliberations was that Mr Quirke was not guilty.

“He remains not guilty unless and until you decide on the evidence he is guilty,” she said.

“You must look with a critical mind at the evidence. You must weigh one piece against another.”

The onus of proving the case was on the prosecution, she said, and the defence does not have to prove anything.

She said proof was required to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

This was a higher standard than the standard that applies in a civil case where things are decided on the balance of probabilities, the judge said.

But she added that it was “not an impossible standard” and the case did not need to be proven with “mathematical certainty” because nothing in human affairs can be proven to that extent.

She said that if the jury had doubts, these must be based on reason and could not be fanciful.

The judge told them a reasonable doubt was the sort of doubt which might give someone pause for thought when they are making a major decision.

She said that if the jury thought the accused was guilty but weren’t sure, that would not be enough to convict.

If they believed he was “probably guilty”, again, this would not be enough.

The judge said they would have to be certain, satisfied and have no reasonable doubt. “Only then can you convict,” she said.

Ms Justice Creedon said that if there was a doubt over a piece of evidence, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.

Mr Quirke did not give evidence in the case. But the judge said this was his right and could not be held against him.

She said the jury was entitled to take into account the impression a witness made on them when they gave evidence.

The jury, she said, could bring their life experience to assessing the evidence of witnesses. They could decide to accept some parts of a person’s evidence and reject other parts.

Ms Justice Creedon said the jury had been told they were entitled to draw inferences from certain evidence, but they could not speculate. This was a correct interpretation of the law, she said.

Source: Read Full Article

Related Posts