26-05-2025
Satchwell trial jury told to consider verdict with an ‘open and independent mind'
Jurors in the trial of Richard Satchwell, who is accused of murdering his wife, have been told they must approach the case with 'an open and independent mind', despite aspects that are 'unseemly' and 'perhaps shocking'.
Presiding judge Mr Justice Paul McDermott has begun charging the jury in the Central Criminal Court trial of Mr Satchwell (58), who has pleaded not guilty to murdering his 45-year-old wife Tina Satchwell – née Dingivan – at their home address at Grattan Street, Youghal, Co Cork between March 19th and March 20th, 2017, both dates inclusive.
The trial has heard that on March 24th, 2017, Mr Satchwell told gardaí that his wife had left their home four days earlier but that he had no concerns over her welfare, feeling she had left due to a deterioration in their relationship.
The accused formally reported Ms Satchwell missing the following May but her body was not discovered for over six years, when gardaí conducting 'an invasive search' of the Satchwell home in October 2023 found her decomposed remains in a grave that had been dug underneath the stairs.
READ MORE
When rearrested on suspicion of murder after Ms Satchwell's body was removed from their Cork home, Mr Satchwell told gardaí that she 'flew' at him with a chisel.
The Assistant State Pathologist has told the trial that Ms Satchwell's cause of death cannot be determined due to the skeletal nature of her remains.
Commencing his charge to the jury on Monday afternoon, Mr Justice McDermott asked the jurors to approach the case with an open and independent mind and 'without emotion and prejudice'.
'There are aspects of this case which are unseemly and perhaps shocking,' he added.
The judge said that if the jurors found things to have aroused their indignation, feelings and emotions, they had to leave these outside the door of their jury room. He asked them to approach the case in a very careful and clinical way.
He said they must return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence and not with emotion, sympathy or empathy.
Mr Justice McDermott said the starting position was that Mr Satchwell is presumed to be innocent of the offence of murder and it was up to the prosecution to establish that he was guilty of the offence.
He explained that the standard of proof in the case was beyond a reasonable doubt, which is not a mathematical certainty but a very high standard; 'the highest standard in the administration of justice'.
The judge told the jurors that they knew Mr Satchwell had not given evidence in the case and the accused was under no obligation to do so. 'In terms of determining the case it has no relevance as he has no obligation to prove anything,' the judge said.
When considering the evidence in the case, Mr Justice McDermott said, the jury must take into account the evidence they have heard from witnesses, statements read into the record as well as the exhibits and 'lengthy media interviews' shown to them.
'You are confined to what you hear in the courtroom, nothing else is relevant to you.'
Mr Justice McDermott is continuing his charge to the 12 jurors on Monday afternoon.
Last Friday, Gerardine Small SC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the jury in her closing speech that Mr Satchwell's narrative of how his wife died after he held her off by the belt of her bathrobe was 'absolutely farcical' and had 'more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese'.
Ms Small submitted that the British truck driver had woven 'a web of deceit' and continued his 'fabricated narrative' over the years.
Counsel said Mr Satchwell's objective from the very outset was 'always to put everyone off the scent' and that this was done because he had murdered his wife.
In his closing address, defence counsel Brendan Grehan SC told the jurors that there was no doubt Mr Satchwell was guilty, but asked the jurors what exactly he was guilty of. He argued that although the accused had lied 'to the people of Ireland', the lies do not make him a murderer or relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving the ingredients of murder.
