Courts

Supreme Court dismisses man’s appeal against conviction for murder

Mark Crawford pleaded not guilty to murder, but unanimous jury rejected his claim that he acted in self-defence in 2018

Supreme Court has dismissed Mark Crawford's appeal against conviction for murdering drinking companion. Photograph: Bryan O'Brien
Supreme Court has dismissed Mark Crawford's appeal against conviction for murdering drinking companion. Photograph: Bryan O'Brien
Mon Oct 14 2024 - 16:31

An appeal by a man against his conviction for murder has been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Mark Crawford (47), formerly of Quarry Road, Thomondgate, Co Limerick, was jailed for life for murdering Patrick ‘Pa’ O’Connor (24) by stabbing him six times, piercing his heart and neck, at Fitzgerald’s Bar on Sexton Street in Limerick on July 7th or 8th, 2018.

Crawford pleaded not guilty to the murder, but a unanimous jury rejected his claim that he acted in self-defence out of fear he was going to be attacked by Mr O’Connor.

The September 2020 trial at the Central Criminal Court heard the men met for the first time the previous day and had been taking cocaine together on July 7th. The prosecution argued there was nothing to justify Crawford’s use of force following a row between the pair over payment for cocaine.

READ SOME MORE

Crawford appealed his conviction but the Court of Appeal dismissed it in March 2023.

He was granted a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

His lawyers argued that a 1972 judgment, The People (AG) v Dwyer, setting out the common law defence of self-defence in cases of fatalities was too narrow to encompass this case. It was argued that the trial judge’s charge to the jury did not set out self-defence correctly and that a retrial was therefore warranted.

The DPP opposed the appeal.

[ Man gets life sentence for murder at Limerick pub in cocaine row ]

On Monday, a five-judge Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in two concurring judgments.

In her judgment, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly considered how the common law position of self defence, which was set out in the 1972 judgment, interacted with the statutory defence which had been created by Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.

The common law position, as set out in the 1972 judgment, sets out that to avail of the partial defence of self-defence, the force used by the accused must be objectively reasonable “in the circumstances as they were” and not as they were perceived by the accused, she said.

The 1997 Act provides that the use of force “shall be determined according to the circumstances as the person using the force believes them to be”, she said.

Ms Justice Donnelly held that the defence of the lawful use of force as set out in the 1997 Act is “partly subjective and partly objective”.

It is available as a complete defence where a person has an honest belief that the circumstances necessitate the use of force and uses such force as is objectively as well as subjectively reasonable in the circumstance that the accused believed them to be, she said. The belief may be unreasonably held but it must be an honest belief.

A jury or court, in assessing whether there is such a belief, must have regard to whether there is a presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief in conjunction with any other relevant matters, she said. But the issue remains whether the accused genuinely held that belief, she said.

On the basis of the provisions regarding lawful use of force as in the 1997 Act, she said Crawford must fail in his appeal.

The jury in this case had rejected the contention that Crawford had an honestly held belief that the force used was necessary in the circumstances as he perceived them and he thus did not satisfy this crucial aspect of self-defence, she said.

In a concurring judgment, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan agreed with Ms Justice Donnelly that the effect of Section 18 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 was to replace common law rules as to self-defence in cases of homicide.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley and Mr Justice Brian Murray agreed with both judgments.