He Should Never Even Have Been Charged

You get into an argument in a take away food shop, late at night, with a clearly drunken idiot who tells you to “fuck off” and asks if you “want to step outside”. He’s much bigger than you and has a mate with him.

Nothing comes of it. In fact, the argument is broken up by a security guard from the pub just down the road, from where the drunk and his mate have been evicted, for being excessively drunk. Your adrenaline level is raised from the evolutionary fight or flight response, but you’re relieved the situation has been defused.

Then the drunk comes back, shouting and throwing food at you. His mate is there as well. You walk outside to tell them to “piss off”, which is your right. There is no law which says you can’t stick up for yourself. The aggressive drunk turns and comes toward you. He’s bigger than you and it looks like two against one. You’re not a fighter and it’s reasonable to think you’re going to be attacked. So you throw a few punches, trying to fight them off as best you can.

One of your punches connects, the drunk falls down, hits his head and dies.

How, in any sane world is this your fault?

There is not and nor should there ever be a legal requirement to "turn the other cheek", particularly if this would in any way risk injury, or even humiliation to yourself.

There is no way the above events should ever be seen as anything other than proportionate self defence. It certainly should not lead to a manslaughter prosecution.

But that’s precisely what happened to Tobias Simmons.

The dead drunk’s mate turned out to be his brother. That could have explained a prosecution if he had lied about the events and put the blame on the puncher, but he didn’t. There was also the evidence of the security guard and even CCTV footage. After being approached aggressively, Tobias Simmons throws three punches at Gearoid Walsh, only one of which really connects.

All that stress over a charge which carries a jail term, all that cost to defend yourself, the embarrassment of the publicity … for what? Defending yourself against a bigger man, who was drunk, shouting and throwing food at you, accompanied by a mate and had previously challenged you to a fight?

As the judge said:

“If at first confrontation, that had been the end of the matter, nothing is likely to have occurred. By returning to the shop, Mr. Walsh had escalated the level of provocation”.

The police should never have laid charges. Even when they did, one might ask how a competent DPP could believe a prosecution could succeed on that evidence, until you see who was prosecuting: Elizabeth Wilkins.

She has at least one Prasad direction loss on her record. That’s where the judge gives the jury the option of acquitting the accused straight after the prosecution case, without the requirement of hearing a defence. It’s rare and only occurs on the most bullshit prosecutions. It’s a real slap in the face for the DPP: the judge is saying that based on the evidence, the case is unsupportable without even the need for a defence counterargument and thus should never have gone to trial in the first place.

So now Elizabeth Wilkins adds to her record another resounding defeat in a flimsy case involving very serious charges, leaving in the wake of her bovine derriere another defendant (and family) unnecessarily stressed and out of pocket. Evil, ugly bitch.

This type of result in a criminal case supports the argument that defendants need broader rights to sue for wrongful prosecution, or at least costs.

Certainly, if a case is won by Prasad direction, it should never have been prosecuted. The accused should then be entitled to full costs. The DPP should be required to explain their actions to an independent review panel. Even if in such a matter, there has been some wrongdoing by the accused, that is no excuse for laying and prosecuting demonstrably excessive charges, either based on spurious arguments or clearly false evidence.