Jury asks judge if 'protection of children' was 'reasonable excuse' for protecting Ashling Murphy's murderer

Jurors in the trial of family members of Jozef Puska who are charged with offences relating to obstructing his arrest for the murder of school teacher Ashling Murphy, have asked for judicial clarification during the third day of deliberations.

Jozef Puska murdered Ms Murphy (23) on January 12, 2022, by repeatedly stabbing her in the neck after attacking her while she exercised along the canal towpath outside Tullamore, Co Offaly. He was later convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence.

His brothers, Lubomir Puska Jnr (38) and Marek Puska (36) are charged with withholding information from gardai.
Their wives, Viera Gaziova (40) and Jozefina Grundzova (32) are charged with impeding the apprehension or prosecution of Jozef Puska by burning his clothes.

All the accused were living with Jozef Puska, his wife Lucia, and 14 children at Lynally Grove, Mucklagh, Co Offaly when the offences are alleged to have occurred in January 2022. All accused have pleaded not guilty to all charges.

After beginning their deliberations on Wednesday Central Criminal Court, the jury returned to court shortly before 12.30pm on Friday, with three questions.

The jurors first asked whether the four accused “need to know that they are doing something unlawful at the time they do it to be guilty of a crime”, to which Ms Justice Caroline Biggs said they did not.

The jury then said they understood that protection of Jozef Puska is not a reasonable excuse in and of itself, but asked if the motivation was the protection of the wider family, particularly the children, and protection of Jozef Puska was the means to achieve this, does this qualify as a reasonable excuse. They gave the example of protection from harassment. MORE BELOW PHOTO.

Courtroom in the Criminal Courts of Justice.

In response, Ms Justice Biggs said it had already been indicated that the issue of self-incrimination can amount to a reasonable excuse. She said beyond that, the issue of reasonable excuse was entirely a matter for them to decide on the evidence.

She said if there was some evidence, it was for the prosecution to disprove it to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

After obtaining clarity, the jurors subsequently ceased their deliberations later on Friday for the weekend and will return to the Central Criminal Court on Monday. 

A change was made to the indictment on Thursday and since then the panel has spent seven hours and 18 minutes deliberating.

In his closing speech, defence counsel Karl Finnegan SC said that Marek Puska was entitled to remain silent to avoid incriminating himself. Mr Finnegan said there was a real risk that the information his client had could implicate him in an offence of assisting his brother after the murder.

READ ALSO: Judge tells jury to focus on fear

Kathleen Leader SC, for Lubomir Jnr, said her client delayed but did not withhold information. She said he had a reasonable excuse for the delay and asked the jury to consider the "natural sense of protection for his younger brother". She said it is understandable that Lubomir Jnr was reluctant to accept that his brother had "committed a truly horrific murder".

The third and final question posed by the jury was whether they should consider only the written statements and other evidence presented or if they could take into account wider circumstances or family dynamics. “For example, if a person is perceived to be influenced by family dynamics when committing an act, can this be considered a reasonable excuse or is it only relevant to sentence,” they said.

Ms Justice Biggs said in relation to that, and in relation to the issue of reasonable excuse, she would go back to what would not be a reasonable excuse, which was the protection of Jozef Puska.

Ms Justice Biggs told the jury that they could take into account more than the witness statements and other evidence.

“You can take into account whatever you deem appropriate if it is founded on the evidence or if you can infer it from the evidence,” she said, before warning the jury to be careful not stray “into the territory of speculation or guesswork.”

Prosecutor Anne Marie Lawlor SC told the jury in her closing speech earlier this week that Marek and Lubomir Jnr knew what Jozef had done shortly after 9.30pm on the night of the murder because Jozef told Marek. Despite this, Ms Lawlor said Marek and Lubomir Jnr failed to disclose vital information when they spoke to gardai. Their wives burned Jozef's clothes to impede his arrest or prosecution, she said.

In his closing address, Paul Murray SC, for Ms Grundzova, told the jury that when his client burned Puska's clothes, she did not have any of the evidence that would later prove Jozef's guilt.

Damien Colgan SC, for Ms Gaziova, told the jury that his client’s view at that time was that Jozef had been the victim of an assault.