Shane Geoghegan Murder Trial — Jury Fails to Agree

Unpalatable decisions have to be accepted

The prosecution in the Shane Geoghegan murder trial failed to convince a jury that the accused was guilty.  Therefore, the case against Barry Doyle collapsed even though he gave detailed descriptions of the killing during police interviews.

The defence argued, successfully, that this confession was the result of threats, inducements and coercion, and was therefore unreliable, given the absence of any corroborating evidence such as video, DNA or ballistics.

I don’t like it.  I want someone to go down for the murder of an innocent man, but I have to accept this result, angry though I am that nobody has been convicted for the killing.

There’s no point blaming the defence team.  Their job is to make sure the law applies fairly.  It was the prosecution who failed to convince a jury that they had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt.

That standard of proof exists so that you and I don’t go to jail for things we didn’t do, and much though we’d like to, we can’t start applying different standards to different people, depending on how suspicious we are of them, or where they come from.

Much though I want someone to go to jail for this crime, it needs to happen on the basis of a cast-iron case.  In this country, we don’t yet jail people on the grounds of gross suspicion, no matter how much we think they deserve it. When we start doing things like that, we’ll know we’re in a police state.

We need better detection, better evidence and better prosecution.


Several members of Garryowen FC attended the hearing and I’m told that they all wanted to punch the accused.  This of course is entirely unacceptable, since the man was not convicted of anything, but I gather it had to do with his facial expression when it was announced that the jury failed to agree.


Previously: Shane Geoghegan murdered

All posts.

18 thoughts on “Shane Geoghegan Murder Trial — Jury Fails to Agree

  1. Sorry, Bit confused, Why would the Prosecution argue that the confession was the result of threats, coercion etc and was unreliable, Is that not the role of Defence Counsel ?

  2. A sad time for his family and friends. I don’t understand how a man can be shot dead in broad daylight and there’s no one brought to justice. I don’t know how the scum that did it live with themselves.

  3. That’s easy. The scum who did it have no moral basis, no principles and probably not a single idea between their ears.

  4. Won’t there be a retrial? Also, initially, a majority verdict, not a unanimous one was what was needed here, which still leaves an element of doubt.

  5. It seems there will be a retrial. The majority verdict required a minimum of 10 jury members to agree but two were excused, which meant that the remaining 10 had to be unanimous.

  6. Back in 2004 the Central Criminal Court sat for the first time outside Dublin: Carney and co. decamped to Limerick because the sheer volume of trials was putting too much strain on the city’s guards. By 2008 the trials were back in Dublin for the simple reason that noone in Limerick would sit on the juries: for example the Kieran Keane trial saw over 700 prospective Limerick jurors called, but in the end they couldn’t get twelve willing to do it, so it had to be moved to Dublin.

    Now I’m obviously not saying that’s why this jury failed to make their minds up; I haven’t a clue, I wasn’t in the room, but the scum who killed Geoghegan have a hell of a reputation for intimidating jurors and witnesses.

  7. It seems to me that gang crime should be subject to the same sort of laws as subversive crime. I can’t see any difference.

  8. In this case there is no evidence of attempts to tamper with the jury; it’s a case of the law being applied correctly.
    The man says he shot Shane (RIP) to the Gardai and later denies that he did.
    There is no physical evidence that is available that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. They have no murder weapon, they have no eye-witness that can point the finger, they have nothing that can actually prove that he did it.

    It’s literally the prosecution’s word against his which means he wins.
    It sucks balls big time Even if they DO retrial and convict him, he must only be the tip of the iceberg.Who was driving the car? Who ordered it?Who were they actually after? and why?

  9. So police interviews are a complete waste of time unless there is accompanying evidence ???

    re comment 10 …The hit was allegedly meant for someone else (a drug dealer [name deleted]) who lived on the same estate .Case of mistaken identity. McCarthy- dundon scumbags were main suspects.

  10. Did I read correctly in IT this morning that the accused is being held on remand until a retrial date is set ?

  11. In my experience, “threats, inducements and coercion” usually means someone outside of the law has the means to exert pressure by way of intimidation. However, if we look on the other side of the coin, there were six men in Birmingham, and four in Guildford who might have a different opinion about threats, inducements and coercion.

    I remember your original post on this, Bock. A sad affair for the innocent.

  12. That’s exactly the problem. Much though we might want somebody to go to jail for the murder, we have to abide by due process and so do the police. It isn’t to protect the guilty. It’s to protect you and me.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.