Murder conviction upheld as judge’s charge was adequate and no requisitions were made

Criminal law – murder – appellant does not seek to rely on any of the grounds listed in the original notice of appeal but rather seeks by way of motion to add a single additional ground to the effect that the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury on self-defence – whether leave may be granted to add the additional ground of appeal – whether the trial judge erred in failing to properly charge the jury on the issue of self-defence – deceased failed to return home and texts purporting to be from deceased sent to the deceased’s partner – message said that the deceased was leaving the partner – partner called family and friends – appellant was a friend of the deceased – appellant told deceased’s partner that deceased had been having a relationship with another woman in Australia, showed her photos of another woman and said that he had run off with her – walkers found suitcase floating in the canal – suitcase contained a human torso – DNA testing confirmed it to the body of the deceased – further searches carried out and bags were recovered from the river – bags contained deceased’s limbs and skull – examination of skull revealed a contact bullet entry wound at the back of the head – amputation of body parts occurred with the use of high speed mechanical saw – deceased had been sending money from Australia back to Ireland into an account belonging to appellant – forensic evidence revealed that deceased was shot at the appellant’s address and his body dismembered there – after initially lying, appellant acknowledged that he had shot deceased but did so in self-defence – appellant said that deceased had asked appellant to murder deceased’s partner – appellant did not agree to do so – on the day of the incident, there was a conversation and dispute – gun produced during dispute by deceased – gun fell to the ground, appellant picked it up – trigger pulled multiple times – dismembered body due to panick as a result of what had happened – defence pointed to a number of circumstances to assert that there was evidence that deceased wanted to have his partner murdered – failure to raise requisitions cannot have been an oversight – inference must be drawn that they failed to raise this as an issue because they must have considered that the jury had been properly and adequately instructed on self-defence – judge’s charge repeatedly referred to the burden on the prosecution, the ingredients of self-defence and the three possible verdicts of murder – it is not fatal that a trial judge failed to give a palmer direction – motion to add new ground is dismissed as there is no apprehension that a real or fundamental injustice may have occurred – appeal dismissed.