THE conviction of a man for the murder of a drinking companion in the grounds of a college in Kilkenny in 1997 has been overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The three-judge court directed a new trial should be held in the case of Sean Bambrick.
Bambrick (24), Loughboy, Kilkenny, was given a mandatory life sentence by the Central Criminal Court on April 24th, 1998, after he was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mr Michael O'Sullivan on April 30th, 1997.
Having heard submissions on behalf of Bambrick and the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday, Mr Justice Lynch, presiding, said the Court of Criminal Appeal had decided to set aside the conviction and order a new trial.
Mr Justice Lynch, who sat with Miss Justice Carroll and Mr Justice Cyril Kelly, said the court would give its reasons for its decision in writing at a later date.
He told Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, with Mr Giollaiosa O Lideadha, for Bambrick, that any application for bail could be processed in the normal way in the High Court and remanded Bambrick in custody.
In the Central Criminal Court last year, Bambrick had denied the murder of Mr O'Sullivan (44), of no fixed address, who was found dead in the grounds of premises owned by the Mill Hill Holy Missionary Fathers.
Bambrick admitted the manslaughter of Mr O'Sullivan, claiming he killed him because he made a sexual advance which awakened memories of past abuse. He also claimed he had struck the victim with a wooden stake because he thought his life was in danger.
It was stated he had "flipped", picked up a wooden tree stake and struck the victim repeatedly, kicked him in the body and poured a bottle of cider over his head. Bambrick estimated he had consumed seven or eight pints.
The clinical director of the Eastern Health Board, Dr Brian McCafffrey, said Bambrick had the emotional age of a five-yearold. A person who had suffered abuse could react in a violent and uncontrolled manner if subjected to sexual abuse, he said.
The trial judge had granted leave to appeal on grounds that the verdict of the jury was against the evidence and perverse.
In the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was submitted that the jury's verdict was against the weight of evidence and perverse.
It was argued there was not sufficient evidence upon which the jury could ground the conviction of murder. There was no evidence or no sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find beyond reasonable doubt that Bambrick had not been subjected to the acts and words of provocation as alleged by him; and had not been so provoked by the acts and words as to lose control over his actions in assaulting the victim.
It was also pleaded that the trial judge erred in law in charging the jury as to the nature and meaning of the expression "reasonable doubt" and in charging the jury as to the burden of proof. It was also submitted that the trial judge erred in law on a number of other points and that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.