Limerick biker pleads for murder conviction to be overturned

A MOTORBIKER has urged the Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for the murder of a member of a rival club in Co Limerick.

Alan McNamara’s appeal raises important issues about the scope of the provocation defence and the five-judge court reserved judgment to a later date.

The court said the law on provocation “is not settled and requires to be considered”.

McNamara (52), from Mountfune, Murroe, Co Limerick, was found guilty in 2017 of the murder of Andrew O’Donoghue, who died after being shot by McNamara at the gates of the Road Tramps motorcycle club at Mountfune on June 20, 2015.

McNamara denied murder and the core argument in his appeal is that the trial judge erred in not permitting a defence of provocation go to the jury.

Among the issues raised is whether the reasonableness of McNamara’s alleged loss of self control in response to alleged provocation should be decided on the basis of a subjective or ‘reasonable person’ objective test.

McNamara claims he was provoked arising from an attack on him and his wife outside a pub the previous evening by members of the Road Tramps, who claimed he was in their “territory”.

That was followed by a drive-by incident at his home later that night where three members of the rival club made threats to kill him.

Mr O’Donoghue was not involved in either of those incidents.

McNamara, a founding member of Road Tramps before joining the Caballeros club earlier in 2015, drove to the Road Tramps premises the next day, June 20, 2015, not far from his home.

He said he did so after his stepson contacted him to say he and other members of the Caballeros were in a car pursuing a member of the Road Tramps in the direction of that club’s premises.

McNamara, who was armed with a sawn-off shotgun, said he shot Mr O’Donoghue because he believed a metal bar in the latter’s hand was a firearm. He told gardaí he never intended to kill Mr O’Donoghue and expressed remorse.

After his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a further appeal centred on whether provocation should have been let go to the jury.