A judge in a murder trial has told the jury that the “horror” of how a man was dismembered by his friend with a chainsaw after being shot in the head should not determine their verdict.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott told the Central Criminal Court jury there were “disturbing elements” surrounding the death of Kenneth O’Brien but the main issue they had to decide was how his death was brought about.
Paul Wells Snr (50), of Barnamore Park, Finglas, has admitted killing Mr O’Brien and dismembering his body. However, the father-of-five has pleaded not guilty to murdering the 33-year-old at his home January 15th or 16th, 2016 and argued that he acted in self-defence.
Mr Wells claims that Mr O’Brien asked him to murder his partner so he could take their child back to Australia, where he had previously lived. He claims that Mr O’Brien brought a gun to his house for this purpose but that he did not want to do it.
His refusal resulted in a scuffle between them during which the gun fell and Mr Wells said he got to the weapon first and shot his friend in the back of the head. He then panicked, ‘chopped him into pieces’ with a chainsaw Mr O’Brien had lent him, put his torso into a suitcase and dumped it in the Grand Canal.
“In this case, there are disturbing elements in relation to the disposal of the body,” said Mr Justice McDermott, as he began his charge.
“Maybe some of the matters after his death assist you in determining that fact, but the horror that might have been felt at what happened shouldn’t necessarily determine the guilt or innocence of Mr Wells...It’s only if it informs you of what happened at the time he was killed that it becomes relevant.”
Reasonable doubt
He said that if the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Wells was the aggressor and that this was a planned assassination, it would be a murder. A homicide was not murder if committed in reasonable self-defence, he added.
Earlier, Michael O’Higgins SC, for Mr Wells, told the jury that what had been put forward in the case by the prosecution and defence was “way outside everybody’s ordinary daily living”. He asked them to keep that fact to the fore and not rush to any conclusions.
“It would be wrong to convict Mr Wells because you think he’s despicable,” he said. “It would be equally wrong to acquit him because you took some set against Mr O’Brien”.
He continued: “If people are struggling on the ground and there’s a battle for the gun and people are moving, I suggest it’s...possible the head and gun could come in contact.”
He said that the real question was whether it was reasonably possible that ‘if it wasn’t going to be Mr O’Brien, it was going to be Mr Wells’. If the answer was yes, there should be an acquittal. If they found that Mr Wells had over-reacted, then the verdict should be manslaughter.
Mr Justice McDermott will continue his charge on Monday before sending the jury out to consider its verdict.