This article is from page 16 of the 2007-04-24 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 16 JPG
THE battleground of the case cen- tred on whether Patrick O’Dwyer was suffering from a mental disorder when he killed his sister, according to the trial judge.
Mr Justice Paul Carney spent two hours summing up the evidence that had been heard by the jury of six men and six women over a four-day eu lelee
He told the jury they cannot “spec- ulate” and cannot “wander outside the evidence.”
“An unlawful killing can never be less than manslaughter. Nobody has challenged that this was an unlaw-
ful killing. The bottom line is man- slaughter,” said the judge.
He told the jury that under the In- sanity Act, introduced for the first time last year, the defence of dimin- ished responsibility was brought into effect.
“Diminished responsibility is a de- fence, which, if it 1s established, re- quires you to convict of manslaugh- ter rather than murder,” he said.
“Was he suffering from a mental disorder? That’s the battleground. The defence says yes. The prosecu- tion says no,’ he pointed out.
He told the jury that, in real- ity, there were two verdicts open to them: guilty of murder or not guilty
of murder but guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibil- ity.
“The prosecution does not accept that diminished responsibility aris- es,” he said.
In his closing speech, Senior Coun- sel for the prosecution, John Edwards said, “It was a very extraordinary in- cident. One would have to be a stone not to feel for Mr and Mrs O’Dwyer, who sit there beside their son, every minute of every day…
They must be trying to seek an explanation. That doesn’t mean we must engage in any kind of intellec- tual dishonesty.”
He said the jury would be obliged
to convict of manslaughter — and not murder — if it was satisfied he was suffering from a mental disorder which diminished his responsibility substantially.
‘He was responsible for his actions, even if he suffers from a depersonali- sation order,’ he said.
Defence Counsel, Patrick Gageby, SC said “uniquely, there is nothing common about this case. There is nothing usual.”
“IT am not asking you to do any fa- vours to the parents or the sister. This is not about favours, nor 1s it about compassion,” he said.
“This is not a private case. It is a very public case. A lot of detail, some
of it unattractive, has been brought to your attention.
“The family veil of privacy has been pushed aside in the public inter- est for you to decide on the defence of diminished responsibility,’ said Mr Gageby.
“Sober, this man never raised a hand to anyone, not to his sister or to anyone. He loved his sister. There is no rational thought-out motion for donk
“A decision to kill Marguerite be- cause she might stop him (commit- ting suicide) 1s a flawed decision, that could not be a well thought-out deci- sion of a person in the fullness of his mind,” he said.