Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
A jury of nine men and three women presiding over the trial of Riad Bouchaker at the Central Criminal Court has been told that the defence team representing the Algerian man will offer no evidence.
Bouchaker, who came to Ireland 25 years ago, is accused of the attempted murder of three small children, assault causing serious harm to their carer, assault causing harm in respect of two other young children and a young French man, and production of a 36cm kitchen knife. He denies all charges.
After learning that the defence would not be calling witnesses, the jury heard from prosecuting counsel Carl Finnegan SC, who began his closing statement.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt told the jury to be “logical” and “forensic” in their decision-making, emphasising the importance of a ” community-based process” which relies on “wisdom”, “common sense”, and “values”.
He said he was “entirely happy with that process” and that the jury would “do what you have to do in accordance with the law” and “decide now solely on the basis of the prosecution evidence”. He noted that the progress of the case had meant that “We have arrived here in very good time.”
Mr Finngean, supported by Carol Doherty BL, said that it could be said, “on all sides of the house here that way you’ve heard is upsetting evidence”.
“You are now asked to put emotion aside when making a decision,” he said, adding that it was “important to acknowledge that something else you can take away with you to give comfort is that there are clearly good people out there, there are brave people who will come to your aid when you need it, even putting themselves at risk.”
“Irish, Brazilian, French, it doesn’t seem to matter,” he added, turning to the “first responders”, “doctors”, firemen, and An Garda Síochána who, he said, do “extraordinary work on a daily basis.”
“Your task is not to recommend any of these people for honours but to decide if the prosecution has proven the charges beyond any reasonable doubt,” he added.
He said that the “potential for alternate verdicts” would arise if the prosecution did not satisfy them of the charges proffered by the DPP and that “an alternative verdict for a lesser offence” might be used.
However, he added, “I am not advocating that you should find him guilty of any lesser offence than is on the issue sheet.”
“I want to make sure you’re crystal clear that he did have cognitive issues”, and as a result of the events of the 23rd of November 2023, he now has “further cognitive issues”, but that allowance had been made in accordance with this.
“You can be satisfied that he has received a fair trial and that a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is not available to him,” which he added was agreed upon by two psychiatrists acting on behalf of the defence and prosecution, respectively.
“His repeated expressions that he was not in his right mind when he did this is not a defence. I say he was not acting in any absence of mind”, he said, adding that the jurors should judge Bouchaker “as if it were any other person, you or I, facing these charges.”
In terms of the three counts of attempted murder, he said that it was the State’s case that Riad Bouchaker “intended to kill children” and that “it could have been any one or more of the children standing in that line.”
He cautioned that that intention was not enough in the eyes of the law, which “requires not only proving intention but also that he committed a specific act on a specific child which you can be satisfied could have resulted in the death of that child.”
He said that the DPP had decided that there was sufficient evidence to pursue charges of attempted murder in respect of three of the children.
He urged the jury to “look at the circumstances and use your common sense to draw inferences,” pointing to the accused’s “annoyance at the letter he received from social welfare.”
“He then obtained a weapon, which, in fact, was inherently lethal.”
He told them to pay attention to the distance at which the knife was used on the individuals in question, as well as the parts of their bodies affected and the “targeting of school children”, the “waiting” in the area, “the efforts to throw away and stab Leanne Flynn,” and his “resuming his attack on children” after stabbing her.
Mr Finnegan said that the eyewitnesses had been “doing their best to recall all of 15 seconds” of the attack, which were “undoubtedly traumatic for them”.
He said that the jury “saw the emotion clearly on them when they attempted to recall what they saw,” and that although “the sequence may be different, they saw different fragments” of the incident, the “core remains the same”.
He said that witnesses had described Bouvhaker engaging in such actions as “grabbing” at the children, holding a number of them with his left hand while using the knife with his right, trying to turn them around to stab them “in the front”, and aiming the knife at their upper bodies.
He recalled the evidence of Warren Donoghue, who was the first person to punch the accused, saying he saw him “trying to cut up little children” and that he “had to be put down”.
“His intent to kill should cause you little difficulty,” Mr Finnegan said.
“I say that it should cause you little difficulty”, that the accused made contact with a knife to the three children “on their bodies”.
He said that the then five-year-old girl, who was the most seriously injured, had been stabbed with a knife while the accused was “ferociously jabbing it”, and that the “medical evidence powerfully supports attempted killing” as medical respondents reported seeing a “laceration across the front of her chest from which blood was oozing”.
A doctor, Mike Boyle, said that he thought the child was dead, as she was “pulseless and not breathing”. The knife had caused a “perforation of her heart, causing cardiac arrest,” he said.
Mr Finnegan said that a five-year-old boy had sustained a “wound on his neck” and that a first responder had recalled that this boy was “one of the children grabbed” by the accused.
The boy’s jacket had three holes in it from the hood to the outer, and there was “red staining” on the inside of the hood, he said.
This led to a charge of attempted murder “because the injury and clothing damage correspond to the neck area” and the “damage as direct use of the knife on him and stabbing motions.”
He said that because the depth of the cut to the child’s neck was “superficial”, it did “not preclude attempted murder” as the law “demands on intent” and that it did not matter that “the fatal injury was not achieved.”
A six-year-old girl sustained an 8cm laceration to the back of her head, which the court heard contained a fragment of her skull. He said that the knife had made “direct contact” with this child.
With regard to the charge of assault causing serious harm in respect of Leanne Flynn, he said that the evidence was “overwhelming” that the accused had “intentionally or at the very least recklessly” done serious harm to her that “creates a substantial risk of death”.
Ms Flynn suffered a collapsed lung, a severed diaphragm, an injury to her stomach, and had to have her spleen removed, as well as the other lung collapsing. He said that evidence had been heard that she was “screaming in pain”.
“She required surgery to save her life, with lifelong physical adverse consequences,” he said.
There is no escape from a conviction of assault causing serious harm to Leanne Flynn,” he said.
Turning to the three charges of assault causing harm, he said that “assault is the intentional or reckless use of force on another person.”
With regard to another little boy involved in the incident, he said he sustained “a slash type injury across his chest”, that “there was blood on his sleeve and a slash mark at the top of his nipple,” with a graze that extended under his arm.
“The logical conclusion is that he was harmed during this attack, and the injury was caused as a result of a knife.”
Another little girl had”wet clothing due to having soiled herself,” he said, adding that there was “a bump on the back of her head” and that “a clump of hair sharply cut” had been cut from her.
“She was harmed in the course of this knife attack, either directly or indirectly,” he said.
A 17-year-old French national, Alan Guille, had “heard a woman screaming” and crossed the road when he saw Bouchaker “assaulting children, ” and went to stop him.
“When he reached Riad Bouchaker, he came close enough, he grabbed the knife, not the man.”
“The knife did not simply fall away,” the witness “had to use force to make him drop it before he threw it away.”
He said it was “not necessary to prove that he targeted or intended to assault him.”
In terms of the charge of producing the knife, he said, “If he produced the knife, then he is guilty.”
He asked the jury to consider “the selection of very young children, the large knife, the waiting, the sudden movement, the repeated stabbing, jabbing, swiping, targeting at the head and neck”, and continuing even after Leanne Flynn intervened, and continuing even after this.
He said that the accused’s “thankfulness that nobody died does not remove his intent” as “regret after the fact, even if genuine, is irrelevant to the intent and the actions.”
He said that the defence will say that the accused did not intend to kill and that this should be rejected as it was “contrary to common sense” as well as the eyewitness accounts.
Finnegan branded the defence arguments as “absurd”, saying, “If he did not intend to harm, why did he get the knife? If he did not intend to harm, why keep the knife? If he did not intend to harm, why ask for school? If he did not intend to harm, why did he wait at the bus stop? If he did not intend to harm, why did he move towards the children? Why produce the knife? Why “jab ferociously” and “why stab Leanne”?
“Why was [name of most seriously injured child] pulseless and lifeless on the ground?”
Mr Finnegan argued that Bouchaker saying “thank God nobody died” showed “ that he understood that death was the consequence at issue with what he did,” and that “Those words do not help him one jot.”
Addressing the lack of facilities, he said, “Think about why? Because Leanne Flynn put herself between him and the children, Warren Donoghue ran and punched him. Because Caio Benecio hit him with his helmet, Alan Guille took the knife”, and because of the doctors and EMTs, he said.
“Thank God is not an answer to attempted murder, it is an acknowledgement of how close things came,” he said.
“He stabbed it into [most seriously injured child’s name]’s heart,” he said.
“He was stopped by the courage of others,” he added.
“The defence does not come near to raising a doubt,” he said, adding that it was “a lame excuse”.
“Seeing this for what it is, and if you do, you will return verdicts of guilty on each of the eight counts,” he concluded.
Closing arguments of defence counsel to follow.
This will close in 10 seconds