Tattoo artist found guilty of murdering man with sword
Ian Baitson died in hospital in March last year, four days after being injured in the assault on the Newtown Road in Cobh.
The 33 year old had a "sub-total amputation" of his left leg and suffered catastrophic bleeding, the court heard.
Dylan Scannell, 31, of O'Rahilly Street in Cobh, had pleaded guilty to manslaughter but the jury found him guilty of murder.
Mr Baitson, who worked as a chef, died at Cork University Hospital on 19 March 2024.
Tattoo artist Scannell now faces a mandatory life sentence.
The jury at the Central Criminal Court in Cork took just over four hours to deliver their verdict, according to Irish broadcaster RTÉ.
It reported that the judge excused them from any further jury service for the next five years.
Man in court charged with father of two's murder
Murder investigation launched after Cork assault
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Conor McGregor sexual assault lawsuit appeal material now the subject of a perjury probe
Former UFC champion Conor McGregor was found liable for a sexual assault in Ireland in 2024. The Court of Appeal in Ireland has referred withdrawn evidence from Conor McGregor's civil case appeal to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), with accuser Nikita Hand's team citing potential perjury. Hand successfully sued the MMA star this past November after claiming he had raped her in a Dublin hotel in December 2018. Advertisement McGregor's appeal process began Tuesday morning in Dublin. When proceedings got underway, McGregor's legal team declared that the evidence provided in affidavits by former neighbors of Hand's, Samantha O'Reilly and Stevens Cummins, would be withdrawn as a ground for appeal. In a sworn — now withdrawn — statement, O'Reilly claimed that she saw Hand's then partner Stephen Redmond assaulting her within the same timeframe that the assault by McGregor was alleged to have taken place. Quotes published by Sunday World in May stated that O'Reilly claimed she saw an assault take place from her bedroom window. She claimed to have seen Redmond push Hand to the ground, but did not see him strike any blows, as her view was obscured. 'I could see [Redmond's] arms moving up and down as if he was hitting Nikita. I also saw him moving his hips in a way that indicated to me that he was kicking her,' said O'Reilly, according to the Sunday World. Advertisement Her partner, Cummins, claimed he heard screams from Hand's home around the same time. In a counter affidavit, Hand described the claims of O'Reilly and Cummins as 'lies' and insisted that Redmond had never assaulted her. Both O'Reilly and Cummins came forward with their information only after McGregor lost the civil trial, for which Hand was awarded approximately €250,000 in damages. McGregor denied raping Hand, insisting they had consensual and 'vigorous' sex. Perjury John Gordan, senior counsel for Hand, asked the Court of Appeal to use its powers to refer matters to the DPP, citing concerns around perjury. The three judges of the court — Justice Isobel Kennedy, Justice Brian O'Moore and Justice Patrick MacGrath — said they would do so. Advertisement Gordon said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn at a late basis. He revealed that he had been made aware of the withdrawal 10 minutes before it was announced in court and argued that he should be allowed to cross-examine O'Reilly and Cummins. Gordon noted that the application regarding the affidavits had been submitted 'some months ago,' and that the information the proposed witnesses intended to present had been 'widely published' within Irish media. He reminded the court of the 'scale of the accusations' directed at his client, describing them as a series of 'highly disparaging and unfair criticisms,' including allegations that she had been dishonest. According to the Irish Times, along with the perjury concerns Gordan cited with regard to O'Reilly and Cummins' statements, he also cited concerns that McGregor may have induced perjury. Advertisement However, a spokesperson for McGregor told The Irish Mirror Thursday that he was not subject to referral to the DPP, meaning that he is not currently being investigated. Appeal The Court of Appeal has said it will give judgment 'in due course' on McGregor's appeal against the civil jury's November finding, according to a Thursday report from the Irish Times. Despite the evidence from O'Reilly and Cummins being withdrawn, McGregor's legal team advanced other grounds for appeal. One ground included that the trial judge, Justice Alexander Owens, erred in directing that the High Court civil jury should be asked to decide whether McGregor assaulted, rather than sexually assaulted, Hand. Advertisement Another ground included that the trial judge erred in permitting a line of questioning concerning McGregor's 'no comment' responses to investigating gardaí (Irish police) after providing them with a pre-prepared statement in response to Hand's rape claim. Lawyers for Hand opposed the appeal and urged the court to allow the jury decision to stand. An order requiring McGregor to pay Hand's estimated €1.3m legal costs has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
McGregor could use Lawrence appeal as ‘avatar' to reduce legal bill, court told
Conor McGregor's co-defendant winning an appeal over costs would present 'grubby realities' where the fighter effectively 'snaffles' back money he had to pay in damages, an Irish court has been told. Lawyers for a woman who successfully sued McGregor have argued he could use his co-defendant as an 'avatar' because the mixed martial arts fighter had paid his legal costs. Judges at the Court of Appeal in Dublin are considering applications from both McGregor and James Lawrence, who was the co-defendant in a civil case taken last year. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel in Dublin in December 2018. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about 1.3 million euro in legal costs. The jury did not find that Mr Lawrence had assaulted her during the same series of incidents at the hotel. The trial judge decided that Ms Hand would not have to pay Mr Lawrence's costs arising out of the proceedings. His legal team is challenging whether that decision was correct and reasonable, arguing that Ms Hand should have to pay as the jury did not find he had assaulted her. Meanwhile, McGregor's lawyers are arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of the matter. On Wednesday, Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, told the court that it had been confirmed that McGregor was paying Mr Lawrence's legal costs. He said that the legal bill for Mr Lawrence, which would be due to be paid by Ms Hand if his appeal is successful, is likely to exceed the award of damages to be paid by McGregor. Mr Boland said this would set the jury's verdict on damages 'at naught' when McGregor was 'preparing to pay over the balance' of all costs relating to the matters. He said that McGregor would 'snaffle' back the money he is paying for damages if the appeal of 'his avatar' meant that Ms Hand had to pay Mr Lawrence's costs instead. He said this would not be in the interests of justice. John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said an 'unusual situation' had arisen in the case around the interpretation of the jury's verdict by trial judge Alexander Owens. He said the point he was making in the appeal was essentially that 'costs follow the event'. Given the principle of jury secrecy, he said the event is the verdict and not a subsequent interpretation of it. Mr Fitzgerald said the verdict was that Mr Lawrence had not assaulted Ms Hand. He said said his client had said that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. He added that Ms Hand had also said she did not believe they had sex, and that Mr Lawrence was lying. Mr Fitzgerald said this begs the question as to how it made its way into a pleading on her behalf. He said it had been open to Ms Hand not to sue Mr Lawrence. Mr Fitzgerald said trial judge Mr Alexander Owens' decision not to award costs was based on his incorrect interpretation of the jury's verdict. He said Mr Owens could have added additional questions to the issue paper or asked the jury direct questions about their verdict. He said said defendants had a presumptive entitlement to costs and 'we shouldn't even be having this discussion'. Ray Boland, SC, for Ms Hand, said this entitlement arises where they have incurred expenses – but this was not the case for Mr Lawrence as there was an 'unusual situation' that McGregor had borne the costs. He said it was 'rich' for Mr Fitzgerald to be raising the matter in appeal when there was 'deafening silence' from him during discussions on the issue paper and whether there should have been additional questions for the jury following the verdict. Mr Fitzgerald said the purpose of the appeal was to consider the correctness of the judge's reasoning – and that he had been satisfied with the issue paper. On the argument that it would deprive Ms Hand of her damages, Mr Fitzgerald said there had to be cost implications for her choice to bring a case 'she never believed in'. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said Mr Boland was making a 'difficult' argument by asking judges at the Court of Appeal to consider the consequences of their verdict as it was their job to consider whether the trial decision was appropriate. Ms Justice Kennedy and the other two judges presiding over the proceedings will deliver their findings at a later date.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
McGregor continues appeal without fresh evidence
Conor McGregor's legal team has withdrawn a bid to introduce fresh evidence in his appeal against a decision in a civil case in which a woman accused him of raping her. The Irish mixed martial arts fighter's lawyers are instead arguing that the jury heard an inadmissible line of questioning about his co-operation with gardai into their investigation of an incident at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018. Former hairdresser Nikita Hand, 35, successfully sued McGregor over the matter in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at the Beacon Hotel. During a three-week case at the High Court in Dublin last November, McGregor told the court he had consensual sex with Ms Hand. After six hours and 10 minutes of deliberating, the jury of eight women and four men found McGregor civilly liable for assault. Ms Hand, also known as Nikita Ni Laimhin, was awarded 248,603.60 euro (about £206,000) in damages. She lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel. McGregor was ordered by a judge to pay Ms Hand 100,000 euro (£85,000) of the damages and 200,000 euro (£170,000) of an expected 1.3 million euro (£1.1 million) in legal costs before the appeal. He has since sought an appeal which was initially expected to include new evidence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal in Dublin heard that McGregor would no longer be relying on additional evidence that had not been given to the initial trial for his appeal. That evidence was reported to relate to two neighbours of Ms Hand who had alleged they had seen her be assaulted by a former partner. However, McGregor's legal team said that after receiving new applications relating to the evidence to be given by pathologist Professor Jack Crane, they could no longer sustain that ground of appeal. John Gordon, SC, for Ms Hand, said it was 'frankly not appropriate' for the ground to be withdrawn on that basis, adding he had only been told of the development 10 minutes earlier. He objected to the withdrawal of the ground and argued he should still be allowed to cross-examine the neighbours. He said his client had been 'put through the wringer yet again' and that the court should not permit the appellant to 'waltz in here and then they can walk away from this'. Mr Gordon said there could potentially be matters relating to perjury arising out of the developments. Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, alongside Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath, questioned how further submissions relating to Prof Crane could lead to the withdrawal of the appeal matter on the neighbours' evidence. Mark Mulholland KC, for McGregor, said he was applying to withdraw the matter on a 'holistic view' of the whole case and after taking instructions. The court heard it was 'unsatisfactory' that the development was being brought to the court at a late stage, but Ms Justice Kennedy permitted the withdrawing of the ground. Following the withdrawal of that application, Remy Farrell, SC, also for McGregor, advanced the remaining four grounds of the appeal – largely relating to the right to silence and 'no comment' answers to questions during garda interviews. He raised the issue of the cross-examination of McGregor during the original trial by Mr Gordon. He said an 'enormous amount of no comment material' had been entered into the hearings to no actual proper end. Mr Farrell said that Mr Gordon had raised more than 100 'no comment' answers given by McGregor while being interviewed by gardai on the basis that it related to a position put forward by the fighter that he had been fully co-operative with gardai. Mr Farrell said this was allowed to proceed by the trial judge, with Mr Justice Alexander Owens telling Mr Gordon multiple times to get to that specific purpose of that line of questioning. However, putting forward the appeal, McGregor's counsel said this did not occur – and was in itself based on an 'entirely incorrect' paraphrasing of what the appellant had actually said. Mr Farrell said his client had said that he had made a comment about wanting to 'show everything' and 'get everything correct' in seeking out the 'best advice' from his solicitors – rather than saying he had been fully co-operative with gardai. He said it was 'manifestly wrong' and 'blatantly incorrect' for Mr Justice Owens to tell the jury the questioning was allowed as McGregor had raised his status as someone trying to sort out matters with the guards as best he can. Mr Farrell argued that the line of questioning was 'wholly impermissible' and was inviting someone to draw an inference that there was 'no smoke without fire' when invoking the right to silence. McGregor's counsel said the judge appeared to have 'somewhat lost control of the issue' and instead later told the jury during the charge that it could still be allowed for the different purpose of understanding background material to McGregor's answers and understanding the sequence of interviews and statements. Mr Farrell said there had been 'various vague circling' around a suggestion of whether McGregor had been co-operative or not, but it had at no point been put to him that he had been untruthful in his answers. He said the handling of the no-comment answers meant a retrial may be appropriate. Ray Boland SC, for Ms Hand, said it was clear from a holistic consideration of McGregor's evidence that he was putting forward that he wanted to be as co-operative as possible with the investigation. He argued that it was ambiguous and possible to interpret an answer that he wanted to 'show everything' that this related to gardai rather than to solicitors, and that it was 'obvious' that Mr Gordon had cross-examined him about his co-operation with the investigation. He argued, therefore, that while the judge may have got some of the details wrong, it was appropriate for the line of questioning on the no-comment answers to be admissible. For example, he said his lack of co-operation was evidenced by how he had not handed over his phone while Ms Hand had done so. He reiterated that the judge had made it abundantly clear the jury could not draw adverse inferences from the no-comment answers. He said Mr McGregor had expressed a want to put every shred of evidence before the court. However, he said McGregor had only been 'middling co-operative' rather than fully co-operative with gardai. He said the purpose of the questioning had been followed through on, even if it was subtle or inferential. A small group of supporters stood outside the court on Tuesday morning with a banner reading 'We stand with Nikita Hand', including Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger and campaigner Natasha O'Brien. Ms O'Brien was among some of the crowd to enter the court to express well wishes to Ms Hand. The proceedings, including Mr Lawrence's appeal against a decision not to be awarded costs, continue on Wednesday.
