RATTIGAN RETRIAL ON GAVIN MURDER
THE Supreme Court has ordered a retrial of Brian Rattigan over the murder of a man 17 years ago.
Rattigan was sentenced to life in 2009 after a jury convicted him over the death of 21-year-old Declan Gavin outside a fast food restaurant in 2001.
But last December, the Supreme Court, by a three to two majority, overturned that conviction.
Mr Gavin died after being stabbed outside Abrakebabra in South Dublin’s Crumlin Shopping Centre on August 25, 2001.
Rattigan remains in jail on foot of his conviction in 2013 for drug dealing while in custody.
In seeking a retrial on the murder charge, Pauline Walley SC, said the Director of Public Prosecutions had conducted a genuine review of the matter and considered there should be a retrial for this serious crime.
Brendan Grehan SC, for Rattigan, argued this would be unfair on grounds including lapse of time and alleged prejudicial publicity.
Giving the court’s ruling, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Frank Clarke, said the test for a retrial is whether it is in the interests of justice, adding the most common reason not to permit one was not present in this case.
Rattigan, with an address at Cooley Road, Drimnagh, South Dublin, denies the murder of Mr Gavin.
He won his appeal against conviction after the Supreme Court found some closing comments to the jury involved the trial judge unintentionally engaging in “a piece of advocacy in favour of the prosecution”. At yesterday’s retrial application, in addressing the claims of prejudicial publicity, Ms Walley said the courts have dismissed arguments to halt trials on such grounds and the advent of social media also changed matters.
Mr Grehan claimed the law is “very far behind” social media with procedures dating back to the 1970s, “a very different time”.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton noted trial judges generally warn juries not to access social media. The fact people access social media is a fact of life and it is “silly” to suggest such warnings from judges to jurors about its use could direct juries to go online.
Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne said social media is a reality the courts have to deal with and trial judges have to have regard to the possibility people may something online they should not.
She added the courts retain power to police procedure to ensure a fair trial and cases in the UK indicate jurors can be jailed for conducting inappropriate research on social media.
When Mr Grehan said. “We’re all the time playing catch up”, Ms Justice Dunne replied that was “probably true” but “not a reason not to act”.
She added concerns about prejudicial publicity could be addressed in the usual way, with directions from the trial judge when a jury is being empanelled. When Mr Justice William Mckechnie told Mr Grehan: “We simply cannot close shop”, counsel said he appreciated trials still have to be conducted.
DUBLIN SUPREME COURT
do
We are all the time playing catch up [with social media use] BRENDAN GREHAN