Jury told it can return manslaughter verdict in trial of man accused of murder

The jury in the trial of a man accused of murdering a homeless man in a Dublin park can return a verdict of manslaughter if they are satisfied he carried out the attack but are not satisfied he intended to kill the victim, the trial judge has instructed.

The Central Criminal Court is hearing the case of Feri Anghel (42), of no fixed abode, who has pleaded not guilty to the murder of fellow Romanian national Ioan Artene Bob in Sean Walsh Memorial Park, Tallaght in the early hours of Friday, April 13th, 2018.

A badly beaten Mr Bob (49) was found by a woman out walking her dog in the park on the morning in question. Gardaí­ investigating the death of Mr Bob believed that a possible motive could have been connected to a casino win he had days before his death.

The court has heard that he had won up to €2,700 at a casino in Dublin City on April 9th, 2018, but that he had already sent the bulk of the money to his family in Romania by the time he was attacked, days later.

Witness Marzana Jurzak, who found Mr Bob and asked him if he had been attacked, said the victim showed her “four fingers”. The witness said she formed the impression Mr Bob was trying to communicate that there were four attackers.

The court has heard that Mr Bob, a construction worker of no fixed abode, died from extensive blunt force trauma, with multiple fractures and bruising to his lungs and the outer surface of the heart.

The jury has been played extensive CCTV footage of Mr Bob and Mr Anghel together on the night and of them travelling on a Luas towards the park. Use of Mr Bob’s card and evidence of his mobile phone’s movement after he was attacked have also been submitted to the jury by the prosecution, who say both were in the possession of Mr Anghel.

In her closing speech on Tueday, Elva Duffy BL, for the prosecution, said while the case against Mr Anghel was a circumstantial one, “the human condition can only tolerate so much coincidence until it is no longer a coincidence”.

Ms Duffy said that it was not contested that at 3am on the night in question Mr Anghel was seen on CCTV attempting to use Mr Bob’s bank card at The Square Tallaght shopping centre next to the park. She said that when Mr Bob was taken to Tallaght Hospital that he had no bank card, cash or phone on him at the time. She added that Mr Bob’s phone pinged a cell phone tower at Whitestown ESB in Tallaght when it received texts at 3.20am that night.

Counsel reminded the jury that key prosecution witness Garofita Selin “clearly recollects blood on the hands and boots of Mr Anghel” and said that the accused had complained of pain in his hands because he had hit a friend while drinking the night before.

Ms Duffy asked the jury to consider “how misfortunate could one person be if these are all a series of strange coincidences” and urged them to consider the evidence “in its totality”.

In his closing speech Padraig Dwyer SC, for the defence, said the burden was on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and submitted that the case was “weak, paper thin and possibly dangerous”.

Mr Dwyer said the evidence for convicting his client of murder “falls well below the line”, adding that the prosecution “did not even have evidence of when the alleged murder took place”. Counsel said there was no DNA, fingerprint or fibre evidence in the case, that the prosecution had no eye-witnesses and that there was “zero evidence of motive”.

He said the evidence in the case was “nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt” and told the jury they must feel any verdict they deliver to be safe because it would “live with you for the rest of your lives”.

In his charge to the jury on Wednesday, Mr Justice Paul Burns said that the prosecution’s evidence in the case was circumstantial and he instructed them on how to handle such evidence.

The judge told the jury that they were entitled to “infer” solely from the evidence presented in court but they could not stray into “conjecture”. He reminded the jury that the prosecution’s case is that the facts should be considered “in their totality”, adding that circumstantial evidence is no weaker than direct evidence.

Mr Justice Burns said that if two or more sets of inferences can be drawn from the facts put before the jury that they must find in favour towards the accused under the principle of the presumption of innocence.

He said if the prosecution had satisfied the jury that Mr Anghel caused the death of Mr Bob, they must then decide on whether or not he intended to kill or cause serious injury to Mr Bob. The judge told the jury that if they were satisfied that Mr Anghel intended to kill or cause serious harm to Mr Bob then they must find him guilty of murder.

Mr Justice Burns said if the prosecution had not satisfied the jury of Mr Anghel’s intent but they still found him to be guilty of causing the death of Mr Bob then the verdict of manslaughter was open to them.

The judge said that it was not contested by either the prosecution or the defence that the killing of Mr Bob was unlawful.