THE JURY in the Eamonn Lillis murder trial has been given a number of possible decisions it can make, but it has been told that any decision must be unanimous.
Mr Justice Barry White told the Central Criminal Court jury it could either find Mr Lillis guilty of murdering his wife, acquit him altogether or find him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Mr Lillis (52), a TV advertisement producer, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Celine Cawley (46) on December 15th, 2008, while their teenaged daughter was at school.
He first said he found an intruder attacking her at their home, Rowan Hill, Windgate Road, Howth. He has since admitted there was no intruder.
On the 11th day of the trial in an overcrowded courtroom, Mr Justice White said the jury must first decide if Ms Cawley’s death was murder and, if not, was it an unlawful killing. “Here the defence make the case it was purely accidental.”
He said there were usually three circumstances in which an unlawful killing might not be murder.
The first, he said, was if the individual did not intend to kill or cause serious injury. The second was where there was provocation, which could comprise words, actions or both. He said such provocation must “affect the mind to such an extent that for the moment he is not the master of his own mind” and cause a sudden and temporary loss of self control.
Thirdly, he said there were two types of self-defence.
“A person is entitled to act in self-defence and take the life of another to prevent losing his own life,” he said, explaining that this would lead to absolute acquittal.
“Where one acts in self-defence using more force than reasonably necessary, this is not an absolute defence,” he said. “If he genuinely believed that the amount of force was necessary but the jury thought it was excessive, that will reduce murder to manslaughter.”
He said that in this case, the jury could also reduce murder to manslaughter if it decided that Mr Lillis was reckless.
This would apply if jurors decided that, on knowing his wife was injured, the defendant showed a serious lack of regard for her health and indifference to the risk to her health and welfare.
He mentioned the evidence of [deputy state pathologist] Dr [Michael] Curtis that Ms Cawley might not have died had medical assistance been summoned, “so perhaps there are four considerations as regards manslaughter”.
“You cannot return a verdict of manslaughter in this case if you have a split in your numbers,” Mr Justice White added. “You must all be agreed on the reason.”