Issue of intoxication "all over" case of 24-year-old man who fatally stabbed his sister’s partner

by Alison O’Riordan

The issue of intoxication is "all over" the case of a 24-year-old man who fatally stabbed his sister’s partner with a kitchen knife, with the consumption of three bottles of "firewater" having an effect on everyone that night, lawyers for the accused have told a murder trial jury.

The jury panel of eight men and four women, having so far spent two hours and 20 minutes considering their verdict, have ceased their deliberations for the weekend.

At 4pm today, presiding judge Mr Justice David Keane told the jurors he would release them for the weekend and directed them to return on Monday morning to continue their deliberations.

Moldovan national Valeriu Melnic (24), with an address at Calliaghstown Lower, Rathcoole, Co Dublin has pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the manslaughter of Ion Daghi (39) at The Close, Sallins Park, Sallins in Co Kildare on May 12th, 2024.

A pathologist has told the jury that Mr Daghi died from a single stab wound to the chest, which measured 13cm in depth, and death would have been very rapid.

Mr Melnic told gardaí in his interviews that he couldn't remember stabbing his sister's partner with a kitchen knife as he was so drunk but later said that "all the evidence pointed" to him being "the only one responsible".

Witness Alexandru Beccieu gave evidence that the accused was squatting down trying to protect his head earlier in the night while Mr Daghi held the leg of a chair and told him "stop or I'll beat you one".

In his closing address on Thursday, Carl Hanahoe SC, prosecuting, told the jury that when they applied their common sense to the case it was quite clear that Mr Daghi at all times was trying to calm the accused man down but Mr Melnic was impervious to this; "he wasn't to be quietened".

Mr Hanahoe said Mr Daghi had entered the kitchen when a struggle pursued between the accused and his sister. "It wasn't the entry of a bull or a bear, it was a man entering saying 'calm down, calm down'".

Counsel said the accused had responded with "I will kill you", which the prosecutor said was the "clearest statement of intent" that the jury are likely to encounter.

The lawyer said when the jurors examined each of the issues in the case and stepped back from the fog, they could be satisfied that the defences of provocation and intoxication were not open to Mr Melnic and the appropriate verdict was guilty of murder.

In his closing speech, Brendan Grehan SC, defending, told the jurors that the blade of the knife was 20cm long and the injury to the chest area was "much much shorter" and yet Mr Daghi had died. He suggested that his client should be found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Referring to the words 'I will kill you" which were uttered by the accused, Mr Grehan told the jurors if everybody who said these words in a fight were guilty of murder then the State wouldn't be able to build prisons fast enough. "People say things not meaning them".

Intoxication, he said, was "all over this case" and the consumption of three bottles of "firewater" had an effect on everyone that night. Mr Grehan said whiskey can have a remarkable transformation on peoples moods and how they behave.

Having been arrested on suspicion of assault causing harm to Mr Daghi in the early hours of May 12th, Mr Melnic was deemed unfit for interview and was not questioned until 15 hours later.

He told interviewing officers at Naas Garda Station that he and the deceased had been drunk and at some point an argument started. "A lot of drink was taken, my memory is very hazy," added the accused.

Mr Grehan asked the jurors to look at whether the accused was acting under provocation and whether something had been done to him which caused him for a very short period of time to totally lose it in terms of self control. He said all the indicators were there that Mr Melnic was totally out of control that night.

Counsel said evidence had been given that the accused was down on the ground with his hands over his head and Mr Daghi stood over him with the remains of a chair, which had been smashed into pieces

There was any doubt at all, the barrister said, but that a provocative act had occurred to the accused, who was badly beaten and had reacted to that.

He said his client had reacted badly in hot blood and picked up a knife in the heat of the moment, where passions did not have time to cool. "Provocation is a reaction to something that causes you to boil over and boil over he did and cause the death of the deceased".

Curiously, the lawyer said Mr Melnic did not recall being hit over the head with the leg of a chair and the only thing he could remember was the deceased having his hands around his neck trying to strangle him.

He said nine hours after the accused's arrest, scrape marks or finger marks were found on Mr Melnic's neck. "The accused did get assaulted and assaulted badly, the rights or wrongs of how that started is irrelevant".

Mr Justice Keane spent Friday explaining the law and summarising the evidence in the case to the 12 jurors following the trial.

The judge told the jury panel that they must be unanimous in their verdict.

Mr Justice Keane said they could return two verdicts in relation to the murder charge against Mr Melnic, namely; guilty of murder or not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

In his charge to the jury, the judge said to consider the defence of provocation they must first be satisfied in killing Mr Daghi that the accused had intended to kill him or cause him serious injury.

He said provocation reduces the crime of murder to manslaughter and for the defence to arise it must be a complete and sudden loss of self control.

The judge said it must go beyond an action or insult that hurts a man's pride and that an ordinary man would be unable to exercise self restraint in the same circumstances as this case.

Referring to the law of intoxication, the judge said it is not a complete defence to murder and is there if the accused's mind was in such a state from the effects of alcohol that he had not intended to kill or cause serious injury.

He told the jurors if they had a doubt about that, then the verdict should be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.