The saga surrounding the tragic death of Brian Murphy seems to have no end. This case caught the attention of the public like few others when Mr Murphy died in August 2000. Four years later, four young men were tried for his manslaughter and for violent disorder. The trial lasted six weeks and heard from no less than 103 witnesses. At the end of proceedings, only one person, Dermot Laide, was convicted of manslaughter. One of the accused was acquitted of all charges and two others were convicted, along with Laide, of violent disorder.
Laide won his appeal against manslaughter (but not violent disorder) and was directed by the Court of Criminal Appeal to stand trial again. Last April, however, those proceedings stopped when differences of emphasis emerged between Dr John Harbison, the retired State pathologist who is no longer well enough to give evidence in person, and his successor, Dr Marie Cassidy.
In evidence at Laide's first trial, Dr Harbison attributed Mr Murphy's death to a brain injury as a result of blows to his head. Re-examining the evidence prior to Laide's retrial, Dr Cassidy placed a great deal less emphasis on the head injury and more on the compounding effects of alcohol.
This week however at Brian Murphy's inquest, it emerged that Dr Cassidy had not been given access to all of Dr Harbison's report of his examination of Mr Murphy's body. Having reviewed Dr Harbison's full report, she accepted now that Mr Murphy's death "was due to a head injury". It appears that prior to Laide's aborted retrial, Dr Cassidy had not had unfettered access to Dr Harbison's full report because of the Director of Public Prosecution's adherence to a separate decision in the Central Criminal Court where, in similar circumstances, Dr Cassidy was not given full access to Dr Harbison's work.
The differences between Dr Harbison and Dr Cassidy as to the cause of Mr Murphy's death having apparently subsided, the coroner adjourned the inquest and has referred matters back to the DPP. It is thus entirely possible that Laide will have to face manslaughter charges again.
This is a case in which no single part of the system can be accused of deliberately trying to frustrate efforts to establish the truth or impede the path to justice. It remains as true today as when it was first observed: many people who were present that night did not come forward. They more than anyone else know what happened. There is still time for them to tell the truth.