Courts

Jury fails to reach verdict in attempted murder trial of man who twice stabbed ex-partner at her home

Victim Cristal O’Brien told the court how her former partner Philip Cox threatened to stab her ‘to pieces’ and broke two knives in attacking her before going to retrieve a third

21/04/2017 STOCK: The Courts of Criminal Justice on Parkgate St. Dublin Photograph: Dave Meehan/The Irish Times The Criminal Courts of Justice Exterior view CCJ
The seven men and five women of the jury had deliberated for six hours and 38 minutes when Mr Justice Paul McDermott gave them the option of reaching a majority verdict. Photograph: Dave Meehan/The Irish Times
Alison O'Riordan
Mon Mar 11 2024 - 16:45

A Central Criminal Court jury has failed to reach a verdict in the attempted murder trial of a man who broke two knives and twice stabbed his ex-partner of 18 years during an attack at her home.

Victim Cristal O’Brien had told the court how her former partner threatened to stab her “to pieces” and broke two knives in attacking her before going to retrieve a third, in what she described as a “terrifying” attack. She sustained two stab wounds to the leg.

Her neighbour Alice McGrath gave evidence that the accused man Philip Cox said he was going to kill his former partner and that he didn’t care “if he did time”. The witness said she heard the defendant say he was “going to finish her [Ms O’Brien] off”.

Philip Cox (39), who is originally from Tallaght in Dublin but has an address at York Street Flats in Dublin 2, had pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of his former partner, Cristal O’Brien, at the flat complex on December 1st, 2022.

READ SOME MORE

Mr Cox has pleaded guilty to assault causing harm, aggravated burglary and to the production of a knife during the course of the dispute.

Mr Cox, who had been in a long-term partnership with the victim which came to an end in July 2022, told gardaí in his interviews that he never had any intention of hurting Ms O’Brien and had “no idea” why he stabbed her twice in the leg. He went on to say that the incident was “still all a blur” to him.

After seven hours and 33 minutes of deliberations over three days the jury returned to court this afternoon unable to reach a verdict.

The seven men and five women of the jury had deliberated for six hours and 38 minutes when Mr Justice Paul McDermott gave them the option of reaching a majority verdict.

The jurors returned to court after seven hours and 25 minutes of deliberations and when the registrar asked the forewoman of the jury if they had reached a verdict on which at least ten of them agreed, she said “No”.

At this point, Mr Justice McDermott asked the jurors whether further time would be of use to them in considering their verdict or if they had reached an impasse. He told the jury that they were entitled to disagree and he was not precluding them from continuing their deliberations. He asked them to go for their lunch and think about it.

When the jury returned to the courtroom at 2pm, the forewoman told the judge that they had not reached a verdict and were “still undecided”. When asked by the judge whether further time would help them reach a verdict, the forewoman said they did not need the time.

The forewoman of the jury again answered “No” when asked by the registrar whether they had reached a verdict on which at least ten of them agreed.

Mr Justice McDermott told the forewoman to write the single word ‘Disagreement’ next to the count on the issue paper and thanked them for their participation in the process. He told the jury that without their involvement “the system simply can’t work” and that this concluded their service.

The judge exempted them from jury service for the next ten years. He listed the matter for mention on March 22nd.