Clonmel murder trial: jury retires to consider its verdict

The jury in the trial of a 28-year-old man accused of murdering a 90-year-old retired farmer in his Waterford home has begun its deliberations at the Central Criminal Court.

Mr Justice Paul Coffey finished charging the jury this morning in the trial of Ross Outram.

Mr Outram (28), of Ferryland, Waterford Road, Clonmel in Co Tipperary, has pleaded not  guilty to murdering Paddy Lyons (90) at Loughleagh, Ballysaggart, Lismore, Co Waterford, at a time unknown between February 23 and 26, 2017.

The judge said there were four verdicts the jury could return, namely; guilty of murder, not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of murder but guilty of assault causing harm, or not guilty.

Mr Justice Coffey told the jurors that they must be unanimous in their verdict before sending them away to begin deliberations at 11.42am today.

The jury of eight men and four women has so far spent one hour and 19 minutes considering their verdict and will return this afternoon.

Pathologist Dr Margaret Bolster has told the trial of observing Mr Lyons' blood-smeared body in an armchair at his home. She found his cause of death to be blunt force trauma to his body along with a traumatic brain injury and shock due to fractures of his hip joint, jawbone and ribs.

The jury has heard medical evidence that Mr Lyons suffered a “stiffness or fusion” of his right shoulder during childbirth and could only keep it in one position.

Mr Outram told gardai in interviews that he had “fought back” after Mr Lyons hit him with a walking stick and shovel, and that he had taken up to 100 Xanax that day. A pharmaceutical expert has told the jury that there is "no proof" that Mr Outram had taken Xanax.

The trial has previously heard that Mr Outram had injuries that included marks on his hands, bruising to the inside of his thigh and lumps on his head.

Defence counsel, Michael O’Higgins SC, argued in his closing speech that Mr Outram had acted in self defence and that he could not be made liable for "a fall" which saw Mr Lyons break his hip if it was unconnected to the original injuries inflicted on him by the accused. A defence pathologist said he "favoured" the possibility that Mr Lyons' hip fracture was the result of a fall rather than blows with a blunt weapon. 

Prosecution counsel, John O’Kelly SC, submitted that no one knew how much truth "if any" is in Mr Outram’s version of events, as he had lied consistently in his first six garda interviews.

Counsel told the jury that it “flew in the face of all common sense” to suggest that Mr Lyons’ hip injury could have occurred after he was subjected to the attack or could be seen as something entirely independent. “There is no evidence to show that it could have happened later or was entirely separate and independent,” he said. 

Mr Justice Coffey yesterday  told the jury in his charge that in order to convict Mr Outram of murder they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lyons’ fall and the fracture of his hip was either directly caused by the multiple blows inflicted on him or it was reasonably foreseeable that it was a natural consequence of these blows.

If the jury found that Mr Lyons fell on the ground or collapsed in the course of being repeatedly beaten by Mr Outram, the judge said they could find that causation had been established. 

However, if the jury accepted that it was reasonably possible that Mr Lyons did not fall or sustain his hip injury during the altercation and the fall occurred after Mr Outram left the house, then causation had not been made out and they must acquit him of murder.

In order to convict Mr Outram of murder, the jury must be satisfied that the natural and probable outcome of the accused's acts was to cause death or serious injury to Mr Lyons. The jury must also be satisfied that the accused did not act in self-defence. However, if the jury was satisfied that Mr Outram acting in self-defence used more force than was reasonably necessary but no more than he considered necessary then they could find him guilty of manslaughter instead. 

Mr Justice Coffey emphasised that it was of particular relevance that Mr Lyons was a man of advanced years, who had poor health and a “useless” or limited right arm. The jury must see if the deceased had posed a threat to Mr Outram, he concluded.