Robert O'Connor
Expert psychiatrists for the prosecution and defence disagree on whether Robert O’Connor was insane when he killed his father, mother and younger special needs brother in their Co Louth home last year.
THE “BATTLEGROUND” BETWEEN the prosecution and defence in the trial of a man accused of murdering three members of his family is whether he was insane at the time, a Central Criminal Court jury has heard.
Recommencing her opening address today, prosecution counsel Roisin Lacey SC said the jury will hear evidence that Robert O’Connor had episodes of psychosis from a young age and was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2018.
She said expert psychiatrists for the prosecution and defence disagree as to whether the accused was insane when he killed his father, mother and younger special needs brother in their Co Louth home last year.
Counsel said the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is not one that a psychiatrist engaged on behalf of the prosecution would support. Whereas the defence position is that the accused does come within the criteria of the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006, she said.
The jury panel also heard the prosecution psychiatrist will give evidence that the accused’s mental disorder of schizophrenia had substantially diminished his responsibility for the three killings.
Prosecution counsel previously told the jury that Mr O’Connor accepts he caused the death of the three victims in the case.
When re-arraigned before the Central Criminal Court last week, Robert O’Connor (32), of Drumgowna, Louth Village, Dundalk, Co Louth, pleaded not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, or guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility to the triple murder of his mother Louise O’Connor (56), his father Mark O’Connor (54) and his younger brother Evan O’Connor (27) at their home in Drumgowna between 28 and 29 September 2025, both dates inclusive.
The jurors have already been told they will hear evidence that the three victims sustained a combined 139 stab wounds.
Last week in her opening address, Ms Lacey said that the accused told gardaí that he had a row over drugs, lost his head and only meant to kill his father and brother, but not his mother.
Recommencing her opening speech today before Mr Justice Mícheál P O’Higgins and the jury of six men and six women, Ms Lacey said they would hear from forensic scientist Georgina Daly, who examined a number of items taken from Drumgowna.
Counsel said Ms Daly examined two knives, the accused’s clothing and door handles from inside and outside the patio door area.
Ms Lacey said forensic scientist Andrea McGrath examined a three-seater couch in the sitting room, which had a considerable amount of blood-staining. Ms McGrath’s view was that Evan O’Connor was on the left hand side of the three-seater couch for a period of time when he was actively bleeding.
Ms McGrath, counsel said, will tell the jury that blood-pooling on three areas of the sitting room floor and on a two-seater couch matched Mark O’Connor. The lawyer said Ms McGrath found that Mark was actively bleeding in those areas while he was in an upright position.
Ms Lacey said the jury will also hear psychiatric evidence during the trial, which will be “critical”. The barrister said in this case, the issue of the intention for murder must be interpreted in the context of psychiatric evidence.
There will be evidence, Ms Lacey said, from two expert psychiatrists; Dr Fiona Toal engaged on behalf of the defence and Dr Ronan Mullaney engaged by the prosecution.
Counsel said that both psychiatrists will give evidence of the accused’s psychiatric background, which involved episodes of psychosis from a young age and a schizophrenia diagnosis in 2018. “You will hear about his inpatient and outpatient
treatment, his antipsychotic medications and his compliance and noncompliance with taking it”.
The barrister further stated that the jurors have already heard the two pleas put forward by the accused: “not guilty by reason of insanity or the alternative plea of guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility”.
The three criteria for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity under the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 are that an accused did not know the nature and quality of the act, or was unable to appreciate that what they did at the time was wrong or would have been unable to refrain from their actions.
Counsel said the court will hear that Dr Toal is of the view that the accused “does come” within the second two criteria of the Act; namely that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong or was unable to refrain from committing the act.
Ms Lacey added: “Dr Toal does accept Robert O’Connor did know the nature and quality of the act; he knew he was killing living human beings with a weapon. But because of the delusional and psychotic state indicated to her – his relapse of schizophrenia – he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong or was unable to refrain from committing the act”.
Counsel said the prosecution’s position is that Dr Mullaney disagrees with Dr Toal. She said Dr Mullaney accepts that the accused was in a state of psychosis and was having a psychosis relapse of schizophrenia.
“Dr Mullaney does say, like Dr Toal, that Robert O’Connor did know the nature and quality of the act, where he disagrees is in relation to the two-second bits; that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong or was unable to refrain.”
“On his understanding Dr Mullaney doesn’t agree the accused didn’t know what he was doing was wrong, as he was able to express remorse in relation to his mother, that he had differentiated responses to the killing and when taken into custody he knew the acts were wrong as he asked a garda what type of a sentence he was looking at,” counsel said.
The barrister said the court will also hear evidence from Dr Mullaney that the accused’s ability to regulate his conduct was substantially impaired, but not fully impaired.
Ms Lacey said the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is not a verdict Dr Mullaney would support from a psychiatric point of view.
The barrister said the alternative plea entered by the accused is guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility.
She said legislators had provided for this in section six of the Criminal Law Insanity Act 2006 and that this was the second potential verdict open to the panel. “Diminished responsibility is where a mental disorder is operating at the time of the killing and you will hear evidence that the person is criminally responsible but it is substantially diminished”.
Ms Lacey said Dr Mullaney will give evidence on behalf of the prosecution that on the balance of probabilities, the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the material time and that his mental disorder substantially diminished his responsibility for each of the three killings.
Essentially, she explained, the “battleground” between the prosecution and defence is the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The trial continues on Thursday.