Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions

(1) He pleaded not guilty to the murder of A, but guilty to manslaughter of him. This plea was made on the basis of his diminished responsibility at the time of the unlawful killing of A and was accepted by the prosecution.

(2) He pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder of B, but guilty to causing her grievous bodily harm with intent to injure, contrary to s. 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This plea was also accepted by the prosecution.

(3) He pleaded guilty to the charge of rape of B.

(1) B's slipper was lying at the bottom of the stairs.

(2) The mat at the foot of the stairs was soaking and coloured red, and it was subsequently realised that it was soaked in blood.

(3) There were bloody footprints leading into the kitchen. The scene is shown in the photographs in album SO882/04.

"He put his hand over my mouth. He tried to smother me. He put his hand over my mouth. He near killed me. He was a big strong brute."

"Injuries such as these could have occurred if a hand or an object had been placed firmly over the face and could have resulted in obstruction to the mouth and nose. Interference with breathing in such circumstances could have induced a serious degree of asphyxia thereby resulting in death. Asphyxia caused in this way may not be associated with any diagnostic signs but in this case a few pinhead-sized congestive haemorrhages (petechial haemorrhages) had formed in the lining of the eyelids and in the lining of the upper lip. Petechial haemorrhages whilst not proof of asphyxia would tend to support the diagnosis, albeit that they may be found in deaths occurring in other circumstances. The interpretation of the relatively minor injuries to the face in this case is problematical but, taking everything into account, would be consistent with suffocation caused by obstruction of the mouth and nose.

The autopsy also revealed evidence of underlying heart disease, the severity of which could possibly have precipitated a heart attack at any time. The heart was enlarged, probably due to a raised blood pressure, and there was moderate to severe degenerative narrowing of the main coronary arteries. There can be little doubt that heart disease of this severity would undoubtedly have made this man more susceptible to the effects of suffocation or attempted suffocation both in terms of stress associated with the event as well as the direct effects of airway obstruction. Under these circumstances it would not be unreasonable to incriminate the heart disease as contributing to the fatal outcome."

"She stated that at approximately 03 00 am that morning of 19/12/04 when she was lying in bed, a male person entered her bedroom, he put his hand over her mouth and nose, caught her by the hair, and began knocking her head against the wall several times. She was then dragged from the bed by her shoulders, and forced to lie on her stomach as he searched the room. She stated that the person told her she would be choked, if she did not give him money. He then told her to go downstairs and look for money. When she got to the stairs, she felt a blow to the back of her head and fell down the stairs. She had a vague recollection of being on the couch in the kitchen, and the person touching her vagina, but when questioned about any sexual penetration of her vagina she could not remember. She thinks she was unconscious until about 10 30 am when she remembered trying to get to the telephone. She did not remember how she got assistance but could remember being taken by ambulance to hospital. She had no relevant medical history, nor was she on any sleeping medication. On examination, B was a frail elderly lady who was obviously quite distressed by her ordeal. There was a laceration to her head which was heavily bandaged. There was extensive fresh bruising around her right eye, below her left eye left cheek bone, to lateral aspect of her left lip, to the right side of her chin and also to the left side of her chin. There was also fresh bruising to both sides of her neck, and extensive small petechial haemorrhages on her neck. On the anterior aspect of her upper cheek there was extensive bruising to both right and left sides, and also bruising to both right and left shoulders posteriorly. On the anterior aspect of her right upper arm there were five areas of fresh bruising of varying sizes to the medial aspect, and bruising to the palmar aspect of her right hand. On the posterior aspect of her right arm, there was fresh bruising to the upper aspect, bruising to her right elbow, and bruising over the dorsal aspect of her right hand, second finger and to her third finger. There was also fresh bruising to the right lumbar area of her back, mid lumbar spine, three bruises on her right buttock and one bruise on her left buttock. On the anterior aspect of her right knee were two fresh bruises, and two bruises to the upper, lateral aspect of her right thigh. On the posterior aspect of her left lower leg was a fresh bruise. I also observed fresh blood around and close to the vagina, with a fresh 1.5 cm laceration to the fourchette region of her vagina, at 6 o'clock position. I was unable to pass a vaginal speculum for further examination due to vaginal spasm."

"Prior to the traumatic incident in December 2004, B was living with her brother, she worked as a housewife, drove her car and managed her own affairs with ease. According to the staff in the practice, B was an outgoing person, she would have been light hearted and chatty.

Since the physical assault and rape in December 2004, together with the murder of her brother, B has been withdrawn, low anxious, quietly spoken and distracted. She feels her hearing has deteriorated since the attack – however it is normal on testing. She has suffered from chronic severe abdominal pain which has been thoroughly investigated by surgeons, urologists and gynaecologists and has been found to be of psychosomatic origin. She remains on strong analgesia to keep this pain under control.

She has been assessed by psychiatry who have diagnosed a significant mixed anxiety depressive neurosis as a result of the assault.

In short, B was previously a well, capable, independent woman who lived with her brother, managed the house, drove her car, was on medication for osteoporosis and an irregular heart beat. Since the attack, she is living in a nursing home, unable to drive, on multiple strong medications for anxiety, depression, pain, abdominal complaints and urinary symptoms, none of which have a physical cause. She is highly dependent on family to manage her affairs.

B's life was completely transformed overnight by the attack, she will never return to the independent living or the good health that she had. In Dr McCammon's words "To say that she is only a shadow of her former happy, outgoing self is an understatement. She is going to have to live with the pain and memory of what occurred along with the loss of her brother for every day of the rest of her life."

"He reported a history of violence and of assaults against the Police and other people, he said that these were always alcohol related, but not for several years. He admitted that he had been violent towards his wife when they were married in his early twenties."

"On the nurse's visit, Mr Murray was prepared for the police and anyone else to come and he was going to resist arrest. He even had a knife waiting to help him to protect himself. The nurse wrote 'I do feel that to visit Arthur on one's own without having a rapport with him would be dangerous, and I only visit when his friend is present. Thankfully, Arthur will not open his door to anyone coming unless Mr O'Neill is present, but I would worry if anyone did persist, what he would actually do. Again his actions would not be resultant from psychotic state but due to an extreme anxiety reaction which in itself could become psychotic." The nurse went on to say "that he felt that Mr Murray had elements which make him dangerous to others".

"The impression was this was an accidental overdose in a person with a history of depression and possible psychiatric features in the past, and schizoid personality traits."

Finally there was a further admission to Craigavon Accident and Emergency Department on 22 February 2005 following the collapse to which I have earlier referred, and he was still a patient in Craigavon Hospital when he was arrested for questioning in relation to these charges.

"It is my view, therefore, that at the material time, Mr Murray was likely to have been suffering from such abnormality of mind as to have substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts. I consider that his abnormality of mind, Paranoid Psychosis and Severe Personality Disorder, were so different from that of ordinary persons, that any reasonable person would have regarded them as abnormal. At the time in question, I think it unlikely that Mr Murray was able to exercise his will power to control his physical acts in accordance with rational judgement, and I think it likely that, at the material time, he was unable to form such a rational judgement about whether what he was doing was right or wrong. I believe that these abnormalities of the mind were due to the recognised psychiatric disorders of Paranoid Psychosis and Severe Personality Disorder, exacerbated by alcohol. I think that all of these factors were sufficient as substantially to diminish Mr Murray's responsibilities for his acts at the material time. The causes of the underlying illness were clearly inherent causes due to disease of the mind. The alcohol, although obviously not an inherent cause, was only effective in substantially reducing his ability to control his acts in this case because of his underlying psychiatric disorders.

Currently, I regard Mr Murray as fit to plead."

"He became increasingly depressed and gradually increasing his consumption of cannabis until eventually he was smoking a ¼oz a week. He would have a reefer first thing in the morning, then one or two in the daytime, then three or four in the evening. He said some days he was smoking cannabis all day. The point was it was a secret. He never told anyone, even his best friend that he was a daily user of cannabis."

"There are various forms of cannabis plant. The drug can either be taken as the dried and chopped up leafy part of the plant and is known by a variety of names including 'blow and weed'. However the plant also produces a resin which comes in sticky balls or slabs and that is known as hashish. However, plant breeders have been breeding other strains of cannabis and that is how 'skunk' has arrived. This plant can grow outside a greenhouse, even in Holland. Furthermore, the product obtained from it is much more intoxicating than the earlier forms of cannabis. A sizeable proportion of cannabis users consume cannabis on a regular, even daily basis, and as a consequence tend to live in a fog. They can lose the sharp appreciation of reality and lethargy sets in (Amotivational syndrome). They can become dull and ponderous in conversation with thoughts tailing away mid stream. Also it can cause paranoia in some people and also it can cause a paranoid psychosis and this may be short lived and there may well be disorientation, fear, delusions and hallucinations."

"It would seem to me that the evidence suggests an ongoing psychotic condition, either induced by cannabis in which case it would fluctuate or he developed a paranoid schizophrenic illness made worse by the ingestion of cannabis. All along he has been prescribed antipsychotics and antidepressant medication and that medication would counteract, at least in part, the effect of the cannabis.

Assuming he committed this very serious offence, I think it is of significance that he told me that he had stopped his medication some time before the alleged offence and also said he did not always take his medication. He drank that day and it seems to be probable, assuming he is guilty, that the alcohol induced a temporary worsening of his mental health and he became, for a short time, floridly psychotic. We already know that in the past he had command hallucinations. He claims he cannot remember and yet the DNA evidence apparently is totally conclusive that he must have been there. His loss of memory therefore may be feigned and he is lying or it may be connected with alcohol. Alcohol amnesia is very common. But also patients with acute transient psychotic states who kill and do serious harm may, quite genuinely, not be able to recall what happened and one can interview these prisoners or patients over the years but one is never able to retrieve the actual delusions or hallucinations that were operating at the time of the violence.

No doubt the Court will be going carefully into the question of whether there was any animosity between Mr Murray and A or B. If there was not and the offence seems inexplicable without motivation I think one is left with the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities Mr Murray had tipped over into florid psychosis and his extreme violence flowed from the delusions and hallucinations associated with a psychotic illness. These brief psychotic episodes can be short-lived even though the violence is horrendous and then the person quickly reverts to their normal state."

"The constellation of factors which came together to result in this offence are not entirely clear and may never be known. Why it happened on that
particular evening and to those particular victims is unknown. We are assuming that this offence is most likely to have occurred when Mr Murray was acutely psychotic, possibly experiencing command hallucinations to kill, and this state largely having arisen as a consequence of non-compliance with prescribed medication and use of illicit drugs. He has longstanding angry feelings and there may be conflicting love/hate feelings towards his mother which were of relevance in this offence also."

"..in my opinion as a forensic psychiatrist now of some 40 years standing, I do not see that there was any warning, assuming Mr Murray is guilty, that this particular tragedy was going to occur and I do not see what could have been done by the caring professionals to have prevented it. My view is that if Mr Murray is being truthful about his cannabis consumption it played a significant part in maintaining an abnormal mental state. He never disclosed it to the professionals caring for him because it was a guilty secret. If they had known and assuming it was true, then I think that they would have comprehended much more clearly the reasons for Mr Murray's on-going paranoid mental state and I am sure would have done their level best to dissuade him from using cannabis."

The defendant's deliberate concealment of his cannabis consumption is a factor of considerable significance when it comes to deciding the extent of his residual responsibility for these crimes, and the sentence that should be imposed, as I will explain later in this judgment.

"I regard Mr Murray as suffering from a severe and lifelong condition now, that of Paranoid Psychosis with Severe Personality Disorder. At the time in question he was apparently taking his medication regularly and he was under fairly close Community Psychiatric review. He had been regarded as dangerous in 2002. I therefore regard his prognosis for recovery from his condition was [presumably this should be "as"] very poor and think that he is likely to remain dangerous as a result of his psychiatric disorder. His present imprisonment does not seem to be making his underlying disorder worse. I would recommend a forensic psychiatry option as to the most appropriate psychiatric disposal. Apart from the use of ongoing medication, I do not consider that any neuropsychiatric treatment is required."

"I have been asked to consider the risk that Mr Murray would re-offend in a similar manner. Taking into account Mr Murray's history, the fact that his exact state of mind is unknowable at the time of the offences, his age and the length of time he has now been in jail, without any evidence of disturbed behavior, it is my considered opinion that, if he were to remain on his prescribed medication and under ongoing and close psychiatric review, the risk of him re-offending in a similar manner is low."

"DANGEROUSNESS

"If the Court accepts that Mr Murray had an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence and that abnormality of mind was an acute psychotic illness, then this presents grave and difficult problems for those responsible for assessing dangerousness in the years to come. It may be likely, of course if Mr Murray is found guilty and there is a prison sentence, that he will have an episode of psychosis sufficient to warrant his transfer to a psychiatric hospital. Apart from that I think there is a very high risk of serious self harm. Even if those two things do not happen it is almost impossible to say with certainty when a person who has committed a serious offence during a brief psychotic episode will ever be safe to live again in the community."

"It is impossible to predict the future and specifically whether Mr Murray would, given the opportunity, kill and rape again. The statistical likelihood of such an event happening would be very low. The issue is not so much whether such an event could happen but whether it can be prevented by risk management strategies."

She referred to his history of violence and of alcohol and substance abuse, his significant personality problem in the past, and his failure in the past to entirely comply with recommendations made by his supervising psychiatrist. She continued:

"These historical factors serve to increase Mr Murray's risk of future violence above the general population threshold. It therefore must be accepted that he will always present a certain level of residual risk irrespective of intervention. The focus therefore has to be on future risk management strategies."

She also commented that his insight into his mental health was poor, and referred to his denying the presence of symptomatology, and not admitting to using cannabis. She noted that he was unable to see any possible link between his cannabis use and the onset of his mental health difficulties, concluding:

"This suggests to me that he does not fully appreciate how essential it is that he has his medication, complies with his treatment and is proactive in obtaining it should it not be made available for him."

"I think that the risk of Mr Murray re-offending in a similar manner will only be considered low for as long as he is in a very controlled environment subject to high levels of supervision, abstinence from substances and with a stable mental state. I believe he will need stringent testing out through phased reintroduction of increasing stresses before he could be considered suitable for highly supervised community care. If he receives a discretionary life sentence for example, I would envisage that his longer-term management would be a joint process between Probation and Community Forensic Mental Health Team Staff. Mental Health input would probably need to be life long unless there were new developments.

Following sentence, should his mental state deteriorate or should there be a requirement to assess his need for medication and detail his mental state in its absence, this could be done by transfer to a bed at Shannon Clinic (Belfast Medium Secure Unit)."

(i) His first conviction on 13 December 1977 was for possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, for which he received a supervision order for two years.

(ii) On 9 November 1978 he was convicted of aggravated burglary and received a sentence of three months in a detention centre.

(iii) On 18 February 1981 at Leicester Crown Court he received sentences totaling three months imprisonment on two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

(iv) On 4 June 1981 he received total sentences of two and a half years imprisonment, of which two years represented the sentence for an offence of wounding contrary to Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. At that time he was just 19.

(v) His next conviction was on 3 January 1984 when he received a sentence of three years imprisonment for robbery. He was then 21.

(vi) On 21 September 1988 he received sentences of three months imprisonment for a number of offences including two assaults on the police.

All these offences were of a violent nature.

"In diminished responsibility cases there are various courses open to a judge. His choice of the right course will depend on the state of the evidence and the material before him. If the psychiatric reports recommend and justify it, and there are no contrary indications, he will make a hospital order. Where a hospital order is not recommended, or is not appropriate, and the defendant constitutes a danger to the public for an unpredictable period of time, the right sentence will, in all probability, be one of life imprisonment.

In cases where the evidence indicates that the accused's responsibility for his acts was so grossly impaired that his degree of responsibility for them was minimal, then a lenient course will be open to the judge. Provided there is no danger of repetition of violence, it will usually be possible to make such an order as will give the accused his freedom possibly with some supervision.

There will however be cases in which there is no proper basis for a hospital order; but in which the accused's degree of responsibility is not minimal. In such cases the judge should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which will depend on two factors: his assessment of the degree of the accused's responsibility and his view as to the period of time, if any, for which the accused will continue to be a danger to the public."

In that case the sentence on a plea of guilty was reduced from ten years imprisonment to eight. Chambers has been referred to with approval on many occasions since as can be seen from the cases collected in Butterworth's Sentencing Practice at Part B1-1. In the present case it is accepted by the psychiatrists that the defendant's psychiatric condition at present is such that a hospital order is not appropriate.

"It has to be remembered that diminished responsibility does not mean – and this has been said before in this Court – totally extinguished responsibility. It is not a defence which necessarily involves that there is no blame, no culpability deserving of punishment and indeed of custody in the person who has committed the offence."

I consider that the defendant's minimal responsibility, or "residual responsibility" as it has been described, for these crimes is very high, notwithstanding that he was suffering from diminished responsibility at the time. He had been drinking, he had not been taking his medication, he had consumed cannabis and regularly did so, he has previous convictions for offences of violence (albeit a long time ago), and he committed not just one but two distinct crimes of great gravity.

(1) The offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence.

(2) I am satisfied from the nature of the offences and from the defendant's history that he is a person of unstable character who may remain a serious danger to the public for a period which cannot be estimated at this time.

(3) The nature of the present offences was such, that when one considers the defendant's psychiatric condition and the causes that gave rise to his committing these terrible offences, the consequences to others in the future may be specially injurious.

(1) He broke into the house to commit these crimes and therefore violated the sense of security which B was entitled to enjoy.

(2) He had been drinking.

(3) He had been taking cannabis.

(4) He had not been taking his medication.

(5) The sexual and physical attack upon B was of a particularly grave nature. Not only was she seriously injured, but she had no previous sexual experience.

(6) The consequences of these events have been exceptionally serious for her.

(7) The defendant has previous convictions for offences of violence, albeit that he had not offended for some 14 years.

(8) He committed two distinct offences of great gravity.