A convicted murderer who threw a second man's body into a Cork river after that victim found out about the first killing has failed in a bid to overturn his conviction for impeding the garda investigation.
Jonathan Duke (27) was strangled at Bridge House, Sean Hales Place, Bandon, Co Cork, on November 12th, 2011. His body was moved downstairs in what was dubbed "the house of horrors", trussed up with an electrical cord and then thrown into the nearby River Bandon.
Just 24 hours earlier, a resident of the building, 42-year-old John Forrester, met a similar fate, with his body also thrown into the Bandon.
Mr Duke, a father-of-one, was visiting Mr Forrester’s murderers there when he became aware of what had happened the previous day.
Mr Forrester’s former girlfriend, mother-of-three Catherine O’Connor, from Kinsale, is currently serving life in prison for both murders. Her boyfriend at the time of the killings, Ciprian Grozavu (49), denied murdering both men and went on trial for their murders separately.
Quashed
The Romanian father-of-one was found guilty of both murders and sentenced to life in prison. However, he appealed his murder conviction in the case of Mr Duke and the Court of Appeal quashed it and ordered a retrial.
The trial took place at the Central Criminal Court in Limerick in 2021. He was acquitted of murder by the jury upon direction of the judge. However, he was found guilty by a unanimous jury of two counts of impeding the apprehension or prosecution of another.
Mr Justice Michael MacGrath sentenced Grozavu to eight years for assisting O'Connor in trying to dispose of the body of Mr Duke in the river, and to six concurrent years for helping O'Connor remove the body from the scene.
Mr Justice MacGrath said Detective Garda Anne Murphy gave evidence that two witnesses in a first floor apartment at Bridge House heard O'Connor outside their flat saying: "Just pull him, Chippy [Ciprian], he's dead anyway."
The two witnesses observed O'Connor and Grozavu drop Mr Duke over the railings at the river - a 20-foot drop.
'Cheering and laughing'
Upon the return of O'Connor and Grozavu to the upstairs apartment, the witnesses then heard "cheering and laughing". The two witnesses left their flat to find the door of the upstairs flat open, through which pools of blood were visible, and called 999.
When gardaí arrived at the scene, they found Mr Duke's bank card on the corridor floor and went upstairs to find "significant pools of blood" in the upstairs apartment.
Gardaí at the scene asked Grozavu what happened and were told by Grozavu that the blood was his as he had some injuries showing.
At around the same time, Garda Aine O'Regan discovered and identified the body of Mr Duke.
A previous trial heard that Mr Duke had sustained more than 100 separate injuries, after being beaten and stabbed.
Grozavu then told garda that he’d been asleep earlier and that three men, including Mr Duke, had entered his home and attacked him with a variety of weapons including a sword and a hammer.
Initial denials
After denials to gardaí, he later admitted disposing of the body with O’Connor.
At the Court of Appeal, Lorcan Staines SC, for Grozavu, submitted that the incorrect wording of the impediment charges against his client meant that the jury had returned a "perverse" verdict.
"The verdict of the jury was perverse in that it was entirely against the weight of the evidence," said Mr Staines. "The prosecution elected to allege that the appellant did 'intentionally impede Catherine O'Connor's apprehension or prosecution', rather than alleging that the appellant did an act 'with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of Catherine O'Connor', said counsel.
"There was no evidence called at the trial which could have allowed the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the actions of the accused had impeded the apprehension or prosecution of Catherine O'Connor," submitted Mr Staines.
Arrestable offence
The relevant law, Section 7 (2) of the Criminal Law Act, reads that when person "has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him or her to be guilty of the offence or of some arrestable offence, does without reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his or her apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence'.
Mr Staines said no impediment to the investigation had actually taken place as "O'Connor was immediately apprehended".
"There was no evidence of any sort in the present case to suggest that the prosecution of O'Connor was in fact impeded by any act of the appellant. The evidence revealed that she was successfully and efficiently apprehended and prosecuted," said counsel.
Mr Staines submitted that both of the charges against his client were worded that the appellant did "intentionally impede Catherine O'Connor's apprehension or prosecution".
"The appellant was convicted of offences not known to law," submitted Mr Staines.
Timothy O'Leary SC, for the State, submitted that the verdict of the trial was "safe, reliable and in accordance with the evidence offered at trial".
"It is further submitted that the counts upon which the jury found the appellant guilty and the manner in which the said counts were drafted was appropriate, correct and in accordance with both the admitted actions of the appellant and the rules for indictments," said Mr O'Leary.
"It is submitted that the admitted actions of the appellant in dragging the lifeless, or dying, body of the deceased and then into the Bandon River were both intentional acts and, further, could have been performed for no reason other than impeding the apprehension or prosecution of Catherine O'Connor in circumstances in which it was common case the deceased had been killed by Catherine O'Connor and not by the appellant," submitted Mr O'Leary.
"Such apprehension and prosecution was impeded by the actions of the appellant, albeit for a brief temporal period, by the removal of the deceased's body from the locus of the murder and further the placing of the deceased's body in the Bandon River.
"The jury verdict was safe, reliable and in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial," said Mr O'Leary.
Appeal dismissed
In dismissing the appeal on Friday, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the jury could be in no doubt of the actions of Grozavu on the night with regard to the wording of the charge on the indictment.
Mr Justice McCarthy said the headline or stated charge is augmented on the indictment by a section titled 'particulars of offence' which sets out a 'reasonable' description of the charge without prejudicing the accused.
Mr Justice McCarthy said that no application was made at the trial for Grozavu's acquittal on the issue of the wording of the charge and that nothing had been sought from the prosecution by the defence, though he noted that the defence had flagged the matter to the judge.
"There was no prejudice to the accused in the description of the offence on the indictment as moving the body of Mr Duke and then disposing of it in the Bandon River," said Mr Justice McCarthy.
Mr Justice McCarthy said that no-one could be in any doubt as to what was alleged and that there was no reason to support the appellant's submission that the jury could be confused about what was alleged by the prosecution. Mr Justice McCarthy added that the wording of the charge "encapsulated everyone's understanding of the particulars".
Mr Justice McCarthy said that no application for an acquittal had been made by the defence and that, even if one had been, "the judge would have been obliged to refuse it".
Mr Justice McCarthy said the court rejected the proposition that the offence was "unknown to law" and dismissed the appeal.
